| Revision as of 16:58, 6 September 2010 editLevenBoy (talk | contribs)1,267 edits →Incivility: Remove chaff← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:36, 19 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (203 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== April 2011 == | ||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a ], talk pages {{#if:Talk:British Isles| such as ]}} are for discussion related to improving the article, ] about the topic, or comments about the editing style of other contributors. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. If you have issues with a previous message by an editor, you should address that matter on their talk page rather than the article's talk page where it occurred. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} ] ] 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others and avoid editing ].<br> | |||
| Thank-you! However, maybe you should also take out the precediing comment making an accusation of trolling? | |||
| In particular, the ] states that: | |||
| ] (]) 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be ] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
| You and your alter ego are not engaging with the content issue on the talk page, but are simply reverting with misleading edit summaries to boot. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others and avoid editing ].<br> | |||
| ==Armagh== | |||
| In particular, the ] states that: | |||
| See ]. The version that has been stable since August 2008 is the stable consenus version, if you would like to change that please start a discussion on the talk page. ] (]) 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.''' | |||
| :I think you have completely misinterpreted what a consensus is. Did the editor who changed to CE do as you suggest, I think he didn't, so there was no consensus to make that change. ] (]) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you continue to edit war, you '''may be ] from editing without further notice.'''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] ] 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Civility parole == | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- {{uw-3rr}} --> If there is disagreement you must seek agreement on the talk page. --] (]) 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| LevenBoy you are under civility restriction. Your edits on April 26th 2011 are in violation of ]. You have had ample time since this restriction was imposed to learn to use wikipedia properly and to behave in a civil and collegial manner. Further edits in this vein will result in sanctions. <br/>Also, please stop using wikipedia noticeboards to make a point. If you are in dispute with other editors ]--] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == R Boyle == | |||
| It can say that at the Boyle article if necessary. The article is about 'Irish people', distinction or personal history is not needed in an article of that nature, and if this were to be applied to everyone mentioned, then the article would be very long indeed. I cannot see the purpose of your edits. ] (]) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In reference to above warnings for edit-warring. I will give you this single final warning under the terms of the ]. Further revert warring over the use of British Isles (alteration, insertion or removal) whether in one article or across many will result in this account being topic banned altogether from everything (articles, talk pages, portals, DYKs, categories, xfds, etc, and discussions on noticeboards about the topic and/or any edits related to it) to do with the British Isles topic area - this would be an imposition of sanction TB02 from ]. <br/>You are experienced editor at this point LevenBoy. You have had warnings, you've had time to adjust, and the community has tried remedial restrictions (civility parole), if this account continues to ] or to use ] this account will simply be placed under further restriction--] <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| ::And where have you suddenly popped up from? I must say I'm inclined to totally disregard your remarks above. Debates, sometimes heated, have been ongoing for a short while. Many people have participated, some would say progress has been made, some are moving on, there are developments, there are issues, tempers have frayed on all sides. Your warnings above are at this point totally inappropriate and pretty much out of context. And, consensus now seems to be that all the BISE stuff is redundant. ] (]) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::LevenBoy, you are under restriction you are not permitted to post with anything less than perfect civility, it does not matter if "tempers have frayed on all sides". <br>You are in receipt of a final warning for disruption of wikipedia by breaching the ] and your own editing restriction within the last 3 days. The implications of your actions and ] are your problem from hereon in--] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:British Isles|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| LevenBoy, you are aware of the ] editing restrictions which are still in force. I'll give you a chance to revert yourself before taking this matter further, it's been a while. Also, your edit summaries are in breach of the civility restrictions placed on editing BI related articles. --] (]) 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting == | |||
| :But ] states no systematic removals of BI, which is what you've started to do again. ] (]) 10:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read it again. Carefully. And btw, *even* if what I'm doing is against the community sanctions, you are wrong to revert and you are in breach of civility with your edit summaries - so I don't think that excuse will wash. --] (]) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::You might just have a case on the geography articles LevenBoy which is why I left them for discussion, but you are making a fool of yourself on the Roman one. I suggest you self-revert --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Even* if he has a case, his reversions are in breach of ]. Those sanctions don't rule on content - it's about policy and behaviour. He has reverted without references, and his edit summaries are in breach of prior warnings on civility. He's had his chance to revert and he seems to have chosen not to. --] (]) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic banned == | |||
| Please don't revert changes like that when a whole talk page section was opened about the matter a few days ago. After discussion it was agreed that the section could be trimmed a bit. If you have a problem with the edits, discuss them on the talk page and an agreement can be made. You never gave any input before this on the matter, making your reversion even more suspect.] 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just read that section. There is no agreement at all for the changes you made. ] (]) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's down to you to respond on the British Isles talk page. Editors said they wished for the section to remain but agreed it should be tidied. You are just blind reverting. Discuss your issue with the edits or else the text is going back in. Thats the way the talk page works.] 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've got it the wrong way round. For controversial articles you put your suggestions to Talk first. It's not good enough to open a debate about a general idea and then claim your detailed changes have agreement. "Tidied" does not mean wholesale removal of material, which seems to be the case here. ] (]) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Any other objections to the text other than the lions sentence? No one else has objected so far, so if thats the only line you want back in, I'll reinstate the text.] 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You are banned from all editing in relation to the British Isles naming dispute under the terms of the ]: ''Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.''. Your edits here and here (as well as these edits) constitute repeated revert warring in direct and obvious breach of the ] after a warning for such behavior was issued. The formal wording of the ban is as follows: <blockquote>''User:LevenBoy is topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed. This user is also banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic anywhere on wikipedia.''</blockquote> The ban code for this on ] relates to the community imposed sanction TB02. Sanctions will be enforced by escalating blocks if required. <br>Please note that this account remains under civility parole also and that matter is a separate and separately enforceable (and appealable) sanction. Please follow the appeals proceedure as outlined at ] if you wish to appeal this sanction--] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| == River Shannon == | |||
| ] | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly{{#if:Derry|, as you are doing at ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR -->] ] 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Howdy. Why the heck wouldya wanna get involved with that latest BI discussion? It's more interesting to sit back & watch. ] (]) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I think he's being ironic. ] (]) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Derry - 1RR Imposition== | |||
| Please read ]. ] ] 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Emails == | |||
| == Sir Norman Stronge and his son murdered by terrorists. == | |||
| <s>With regard to your emails - which are in my view an attempt to ] with regard to your topic-ban - I have opened a discussion on the . You are free to comment there as long as your comments are restricted to ''your conduct'' and do not bring-up the edits of others in areas from which your are banned--] <sup>]</sup> 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)</s> | |||
| I would be interested in your views. --] (]) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *While I will not go into copious detail here LevenBoy, let me respond to your two emails which raised points (again) about User:HighKing's editing ''vis-a-vis'' the British Isles naming dispute. This will be the only answer to you that I will give with regard to this topic as long as you are topic banned from it. You are after all restricted from all discussion of the topic area on wikipedia widely construed. And it would behove you to edit productively and constructively elsewhere on the encyclopedia showing your ability to be civil while writing collaboratively with other editors using the best possible reliable sources, rather than remain focussed on the British Isles naming dispute topic. <br>The points you raised instances old edits, from 2008 which HighKing has recognized as less than perfect. It was his recognition of this that changed my opinion that he should be topic banned in 2009. This is what WP:BISE emerged from. Significant progress in the moderation of behaviour has been made since 2008 and at various times HighKing's edits have been reviewed by a number of sysops (TFOWR, BlackKite, 2/0 and myself). Currently I do not see a "campaign" of '''unsourced''' additions/removals/alterations. I do see edits, I do see discussions (and attempts to find consensus), but I don't see original research. The latest issue you raise as being problematic is related to this edit along with the discussion around it on the talk page - HK has not reinstated that edit since he was reverted a month ago. <br>As it stands an ANI thread would be a breach of your restriction.<br>You may of course appeal your sanctions but you may need to show how you have remedied your behaviour since they were imposed. <br>Again I will not address, or respond to further comments that re-hash the issues wrt HighKing or others whom you were reverting when you were placed on restriction (as you have already been restricted from commenting on the topic area)--] <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|PRODWarning}} | |||
| ==Proposed deletion of List of extinct animals of the British Isles== | |||
| ] | |||
| == July 2011 == | |||
| The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for and your access to email has been disabled for continuing to attack other editors after you have been topic banned from the subject under ] sanctions. Your email messages probably also breach your civility restriction. Consider yourself lucky this block is only for one month.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :<b>Incorrect redirect</b> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692210171 --> | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Tooting Bec Lido == | |||
| I have made some minor changes to the above page (and ]). I was reading the discussion ] and have have added a few remarks. Hope this is useful.--] (]) 10:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. I see the lido is actually the Southernmost in the British Isles according to a reference from the Houses of Parliament. I assume this is correct? ] (]) 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You mean the one in Penzance, Cornwall?--] (]) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfD nomination of ]== | |||
| I have nominated {{la|List of extinct animals of the British Isles}} for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit-warring on BI articles == | |||
| I shouldn't need to do this, but this is a reminder for everyone to use the Specific Examples page for discussion on the use of British Isles nomenclature. I do not want to have to intervene by using admin tools, but there have been a number of issues of disruptive editing revently. I am sending this message to all users involved in this issue, so do not assume that I am accusing you of such behaviour. Thanks, <b>]</b> 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Just to make it clear to everyone == | |||
| I am posting this to everyone who has contributed to the Specific Examples page recently and this message should not be taken as any criticism of your editing. However, following yet more edit-warring today, I think it's needed to make some things very clear. Editors on BI-related articles may be blocked for | |||
| * Exceeding 1RR/day on any related article | |||
| * Persistent edit-warring/reverting over multiple articles even if not breaking 1RR | |||
| * Following other BI editor's contribs and reverting them, even if not related to BI | |||
| I will also, as I have today, be blocking obvious sock accounts and/or IPs if they are obviously being used to game the system. Edits by such accounts will be reverted. This issue is now very close to going to RfAR and I suspect the outcome of that would not be one that many editors in this area would welcome. <b>]</b> 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed WikiProject == | |||
| I have made a proposal to establish a ]. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics. | |||
| As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] <sup>(] <span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span>  ])</sup> 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] (]) 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Volunteers == | |||
| Ahh LB, if only it were that easy. ] (]) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Bjmullan == | |||
| You may be interested in the ] thread regarding ]'s attempts to replace Londonderry with Derry everywhere on Misplaced Pages. Your comments would be appreciated since I am mentioning your warning to him about this very activity.] (]) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Nick of time == | |||
| FYI see | |||
| --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2010 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing, for a period of '''24 hours''', for '''edit warring on ]''' as discussed on ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our ] first. ] <small>(])</small> 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| == Unblock request == | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=While I was aware the editing of this article by ] had been raised at AN/I I did not know that the subject of the article itself was being debated there. My edits were explained on the talk page and I did not carry out straight reverting but tried to compromise on the use of linking to another article. I have more input for the debate but cannot now provide it having been blocked. Also, none of the other editors involved have been blocked, so why have I been singled out? My "offence" is no greater, in fact probably less, that of the others.|decline=This ridiculous Derry-vs-Londonderry dispute/edit war has been going on for ''years'' (see ]) and it has '''got''' to stop. If liberally handing out blocks to anyone ''from either side'' who carries it on is what it takes then so be it. As to the rest of your argument, see ]. ] (]) 16:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| . You should know by now to stick to commenting on on-topic issues: do not comment on what are only ''your'' suspicions, and do not comment on other editors' behaviour. ] 09:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well fine, but you've seen the detail and no doubt drawn your own conclusions. It seems from the SPIs that HK can be definitely linked to the IP, though only by confidential information. What irks me the most is that HK is currently accusing yet another editor of being a sock, but of all the people involved in the present debacle he is ''the only'' one that has been proved beyond any doubt to have engaged in puppetry. ] (]) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility == | |||
| The language used in on Talk:Republic of Ireland is totally unacceptable. "Some of you POV merchants really make me laugh!", "the despicable suggestion proffered above", "pander to a disgusting minority Irish nationalist view", "if some of you don't like it then tough", these are blatant and deliberate violations of ]. I advise you to strike those comments and modify your language in future. ] (]) 12:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll echo the above. If you are unable to comment on content, and not contributors then don't comment - it really is that simple. If you're not able to edit collaboratively without commenting adversely on other editors then find something else to edit. ] 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you want more evidence of LB making accusation you should also look at . ] (]) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If ya got any frustrations? let'em out on me, I can take it. ] (]) 12:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == BISE and breach of ] sanction at ] == | |||
| Please self-revert at ] ASAP to avoid a topic-ban or block. --] (]) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Have to accept the current version as the stable one, as it was originally a pipelink which was highly problematic and did need changing one way or another. We will just have to debate this matter more on BISE. ] (]) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:36, 19 February 2023
April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter Edwards (artist). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You and your alter ego are not engaging with the content issue on the talk page, but are simply reverting with misleading edit summaries to boot. --Snowded 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neil Robertson (snooker player). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Armbrust Contribs 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Civility parole
LevenBoy you are under civility restriction. Your edits on April 26th 2011 are in violation of that restriction. You have had ample time since this restriction was imposed to learn to use wikipedia properly and to behave in a civil and collegial manner. Further edits in this vein will result in sanctions.
Also, please stop using wikipedia noticeboards to make a point. If you are in dispute with other editors disengage from them and try dispute resolution--Cailil 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- In reference to above warnings for edit-warring. I will give you this single final warning under the terms of the British Isles topic probation. Further revert warring over the use of British Isles (alteration, insertion or removal) whether in one article or across many will result in this account being topic banned altogether from everything (articles, talk pages, portals, DYKs, categories, xfds, etc, and discussions on noticeboards about the topic and/or any edits related to it) to do with the British Isles topic area - this would be an imposition of sanction TB02 from WP:GS/BI.
You are experienced editor at this point LevenBoy. You have had warnings, you've had time to adjust, and the community has tried remedial restrictions (civility parole), if this account continues to disrupt wikipedia or to use wikipedia pages to make a point this account will simply be placed under further restriction--Cailil 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)- And where have you suddenly popped up from? I must say I'm inclined to totally disregard your remarks above. Debates, sometimes heated, have been ongoing for a short while. Many people have participated, some would say progress has been made, some are moving on, there are developments, there are issues, tempers have frayed on all sides. Your warnings above are at this point totally inappropriate and pretty much out of context. And, consensus now seems to be that all the BISE stuff is redundant. LevenBoy (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- LevenBoy, you are under restriction you are not permitted to post with anything less than perfect civility, it does not matter if "tempers have frayed on all sides".
You are in receipt of a final warning for disruption of wikipedia by breaching the British Isles topic probation and your own editing restriction within the last 3 days. The implications of your actions and your refusal to get the point are your problem from hereon in--Cailil 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- LevenBoy, you are under restriction you are not permitted to post with anything less than perfect civility, it does not matter if "tempers have frayed on all sides".
- And where have you suddenly popped up from? I must say I'm inclined to totally disregard your remarks above. Debates, sometimes heated, have been ongoing for a short while. Many people have participated, some would say progress has been made, some are moving on, there are developments, there are issues, tempers have frayed on all sides. Your warnings above are at this point totally inappropriate and pretty much out of context. And, consensus now seems to be that all the BISE stuff is redundant. LevenBoy (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:GS/BI
LevenBoy, you are aware of the WP:GS/BI editing restrictions which are still in force. I'll give you a chance to revert yourself before taking this matter further, it's been a while. Also, your edit summaries are in breach of the civility restrictions placed on editing BI related articles. --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- But WP:GS/BI states no systematic removals of BI, which is what you've started to do again. LevenBoy (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read it again. Carefully. And btw, *even* if what I'm doing is against the community sanctions, you are wrong to revert and you are in breach of civility with your edit summaries - so I don't think that excuse will wash. --HighKing (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You might just have a case on the geography articles LevenBoy which is why I left them for discussion, but you are making a fool of yourself on the Roman one. I suggest you self-revert --Snowded 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Even* if he has a case, his reversions are in breach of WP:GS/BI. Those sanctions don't rule on content - it's about policy and behaviour. He has reverted without references, and his edit summaries are in breach of prior warnings on civility. He's had his chance to revert and he seems to have chosen not to. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You might just have a case on the geography articles LevenBoy which is why I left them for discussion, but you are making a fool of yourself on the Roman one. I suggest you self-revert --Snowded 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read it again. Carefully. And btw, *even* if what I'm doing is against the community sanctions, you are wrong to revert and you are in breach of civility with your edit summaries - so I don't think that excuse will wash. --HighKing (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Topic banned
You are banned from all editing in relation to the British Isles naming dispute under the terms of the British Isles Topic Probation: Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors.. Your edits here and here (as well as these edits) constitute repeated revert warring in direct and obvious breach of the British Isles Topic Probation after a warning for such behavior was issued. The formal wording of the ban is as follows:
User:LevenBoy is topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed. This user is also banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic anywhere on wikipedia.
The ban code for this on WP:GS/BI relates to the community imposed sanction TB02. Sanctions will be enforced by escalating blocks if required.
Please note that this account remains under civility parole also and that matter is a separate and separately enforceable (and appealable) sanction. Please follow the appeals proceedure as outlined at WP:GS/BI if you wish to appeal this sanction--Cailil 16:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
River Shannon
Howdy. Why the heck wouldya wanna get involved with that latest BI discussion? It's more interesting to sit back & watch. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's being ironic. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Emails
With regard to your emails - which are in my view an attempt to game the system with regard to your topic-ban - I have opened a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. You are free to comment there as long as your comments are restricted to your conduct and do not bring-up the edits of others in areas from which your are banned--Cailil 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I will not go into copious detail here LevenBoy, let me respond to your two emails which raised points (again) about User:HighKing's editing vis-a-vis the British Isles naming dispute. This will be the only answer to you that I will give with regard to this topic as long as you are topic banned from it. You are after all restricted from all discussion of the topic area on wikipedia widely construed. And it would behove you to edit productively and constructively elsewhere on the encyclopedia showing your ability to be civil while writing collaboratively with other editors using the best possible reliable sources, rather than remain focussed on the British Isles naming dispute topic.
The points you raised instances old edits, from 2008 which HighKing has recognized as less than perfect. It was his recognition of this that changed my opinion that he should be topic banned in 2009. This is what WP:BISE emerged from. Significant progress in the moderation of behaviour has been made since 2008 and at various times HighKing's edits have been reviewed by a number of sysops (TFOWR, BlackKite, 2/0 and myself). Currently I do not see a "campaign" of unsourced additions/removals/alterations. I do see edits, I do see discussions (and attempts to find consensus), but I don't see original research. The latest issue you raise as being problematic is related to this edit along with the discussion around it on the talk page - HK has not reinstated that edit since he was reverted a month ago.
As it stands an ANI thread would be a breach of your restriction.
You may of course appeal your sanctions but you may need to show how you have remedied your behaviour since they were imposed.
Again I will not address, or respond to further comments that re-hash the issues wrt HighKing or others whom you were reverting when you were placed on restriction (as you have already been restricted from commenting on the topic area)--Cailil 20:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)