User talk:88.104.5.244

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Legoktm (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about that.

I note that others are involved in same 'edit war' and I hope that you will take that into account, and suitably deal with that part of the issue.

It's really quite trivial; I just wanted to let people know that the New York Times was currently available with no 'paywall'. The reason for them allowing free access is 'hurricane Sandy', and some perhaps thought the paywall was 'down' or something due to the hurricane; that's incorrect - NYT have totally voluntarily lowered their firewall.

Sven 'collapsed' the argument, but I posted to make sure the original point remained - that NYT is, for now, available. That, really, is all.

I hope you understand? 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have talked with or left messages with all involved parties asking them to stop. I will revert your reversion of my revert and that'll be it from me. The entire discussion was hatted by Sven, and it should remain that way. If someone is interested based on reading the header, they'll hit the [show] button and read it. Legoktm (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"I will revert your reversion of my revert" :-s

Yeah horrible wording. Sorry. I meant what I did here. Legoktm (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooookay, but, I object to that.

The purpose of the post was to make it clear to fellow editors that NYT paywall was inactive, and so they could use it.

That was the purpose of my adaptation to Sven's close.

So, hmm, how about we pretend the silly bickering never happened; how about this ? 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Stop removing those comments from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). I will block you if you remove them one more time. GB fan 03:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove the comments except... I made a point (NY times = free), then people made comments ('don't profit from their hurricane') then I responded, then it got silly... and I troed to calm things.

I couldn't, and thought that removing the sad mess was the best way forwards.

I did not remove comments. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say you were not removing comments when your edit history says you removed 5476 bytes multiple times from the page. GB fan 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, 88.104.5.244. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at WP:VPM. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

88.104.5.244 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

see below 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring. Rschen7754 04:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why?

Sorry, but I can't 'appeal' unless I know why I'm blocked.

All I did was, tell Wikipedia that 'new york times' was lowering its paywall.

What'd I do wrong?

Please explain why my own edits were problematic - ie, letting users know that NYT was available - c/f those of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking admin said, "stop in the meantime so that it's easier to sort out" - come on... play fair. Why block the IP not the user? Makes no sense; clear prejudice. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

...although the other party has made their own thoughts abundantly clear in saying, "Fuck off dipshit", "Go fuck yourself", [1], etc. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please post the following on AN/I

Today, I noticed that the 'New York Times' had decided to temporarily remove its 'paywall' [2].

Someone thought that perhaps I was taking advantage of the disaster [3]. I was not.

I tried to reinstate the issue, but I was blocked; the other people who misunderstood were not.

Please consider my case. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• You don't need an admin help template and an unblock request live on this page. I would also advise you to amend your request so that it addresses the issue. Tiderolls 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ks OK, I see what you did there. But now, you should (please) undo [4]. Nothing wrong with that at all. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

...because a section heading "New York Times - no paywall" makes little sense without context. My edit gives it context. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole conversation is there, just collapsed, if anyone wants to read it they just need to click show. The conversation happened and should remain on the page. GB fan 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

TR, the admin help request was separate from any unblock request. I will not repeat it for now, because I guess you're watching. Please consider the adminhelp in context - ie to request prominence (not massive or undue, just reasonable prominence) to the fact that, for a short time, the NYT is not using a paywall. Is all. I thank you for your consideration. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"advise you to amend your request so that it addresses the issue" - I would, if I knew what the issue actually was. Nobody has told me which rule I have breached, therefore I'm not sure how to respond. I'm blocked '(anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: On WP:VPM)' - can someone explain which of my reverts were against policies? Thanks. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to get into a semantic tête-à-tête with you regarding your block issue. You come across as a fairly bright individual, I'm almost positive you know the deal. Tiderolls 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mhm.

"I am very sorry that I undid the edits too many times, and thus crossed the 'bright line' of the 3rr; I did attempt discussion, but I recognise that I did not try hard enough on this occasion, and I intend to try harder in future".

Kisses to yours.

I will not even mention that ...although the other party the other party has made their own thoughts abundantly clear in saying, "Fuck off dipshit", "Go fuck yourself", [5], etc. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Tiderolls 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that either this or this, or some edit to say what it's actually about (ie NYT, free grab it!!!) would be beneficial to the project. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. (just for the hell of it) what more must I do to be unblocked? 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)