Misplaced Pages

User talk:LevenBoy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:36, 11 October 2010 editGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers494,379 edits →"Polls"← 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 
(109 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== December 2008 == == 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 ]&#32; 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 ]&#32; 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)


== April 2009 == == 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|&#32; 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)


I've rationalised the references about the walls, and put yours back. Now - everyone should be happy because all angles are covered. So let's move on! ] (]) 20:14, 4 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)

==Derry - 1RR Imposition==
Please read ]. ] ] 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== Sir Norman Stronge and his son murdered by terrorists. ==

I would be interested in your views. --] (]) 22:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

{{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|PRODWarning}}
==Proposed deletion of List of extinct animals of the British Isles==
]

The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
:<b>Incorrect redirect</b>

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

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;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32; ])</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)

== BISE and Leading sire in North America ==

Just to let you know I have reverted your edit and taken the discussion to ], the place you should have started at. Maybe you could explain your edit there. ] (]) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:No, I am not topic banned and am permitted to make such edits. You have egregiously reverted it for no good reason. ] (]) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::Well if you think you are in the right why not revert me? You are very aware that ] is there to allow people to discuss and reach consensus on the use of BI. ] (]) 18:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::: He is allowed to add BI to an article (aslong as he doesnt add it to dozens of articles), but edit warring over it would be wrong. Now its been reverted we should debate it at BISE. ] (]) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::If he's allowed to add it without discussion at ] what it the point of it? If it was HK doing it the other way around would you be saying the same? ] (]) 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: No probs. I recently did a count - there's 46 more instances of articles linked to BI now than there was this time last month, so while BISE bogs down the BI deletion POV pushers, normal editing goes on apace. How good is that? ] (]) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::As long as there's no edit-warring, cool. ] (]) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Bjmullan, if I'm not allowed to add/delete BI without first discussing at BISE please tell me how my, and your, current situation differs from that of TrIton Rocker? ] (]) 18:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::If your addition is reverted then you take it to BISE, its simple. Same applies to deletion. The sanction on Triton was because he persisted in insertion refusing to use BISE to discuss. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Indeed, you (LB) & Bjm aren't sanctioned, where's TR is. ] (]) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

== Talk:Republic of Ireland ==

LevenBoy, can I ask you again <s>to behave like a grownup</s> not to be provocative? What is It took you the best part of 48 hours to notice my edit (and justification thereof) and then you say "maybe we give Scolaire a few hours to self revert first?" Why should I self-revert because you say so (''without'' any justification)? And am I supposed to log on every few hours just to see if you have issued me some instruction? ] (]) 07:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
: There was no need for you to remove the sentence from the geography section, it was perfectly justified. ] (]) 09:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::Whether there was a need or not, I removed it after due discussion, and with the agreement of the editor who had added it. It's removal, as you righly say, was perfectly justified. ] (]) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Sockery stuff ==

I've responded at my talkpage, 'tis best to keep discussions in one place. ] (]) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Manor Bridge ==

The issue there is the claim that it is the SMALLEST, not the use of BI. With no citation to support the claim it has to be removed. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== September 2010 ==

<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for continued ] and ]
after 4 warnings. This account has continued to make edits in breach of ], as well as the ] and ] policies. You have been blocked for 48 hours for breaching these policies. If you wish to appeal this block please use the unblock template.<br/>These are the relevant diffs in violation of the above polices..<br/>I would also point out that the edit summary used in the removal of the warnings on September 6th was also in breach of the above guidelines and policies (in some ways this was a more serious thean the following two as edit summaries cannot be removed) while yes you are absolutely free to remove warnings or any other content from your user page please don't use edit summaries that could be read as incivil. <br/>Once this block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to request 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 the ] first. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->

*For reference for any reviewing sysop was made after everyone was asked not to comment there until User:Triton_Rocker is unblocked by ] (who had just revoked TritonRocker's ability to post to their talk page while blocked)--] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
*Also it should be noted that the comments which LevenBoy (received the warnings for as well as those resulting in this block) were made in discussions, ANi threads, user talk pages, noticeboards and SPI threads relating to activity in the British Isles naming dispute topic area - which is under probation--] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I've been blocked! Never mind, I'm not now.
==]==
In response to HighKing; You really are paranoid about this whole thing, but in a strange sort of way. You seem to think that there's a very small number of editors, maybe just a couple, but who masquerade as many, and who object to your POV. Well I believe that is not the case. There are many editors against what you are trying to do with British Isles, but only a couple of them have been shown to be socks - big deal. When you talk about evidence of sockery, don't forget that there's also overwhelming evidence that you have used several different IP accounts to delete British Isles. You are clearly trying to remove your antagonists from the frame in any way possible and your constant carping about implementing ] against LemonMonday is a case in point. Your accusations are nothing short of laughable, especially when you try to draw conclusions about LM's absence. For heavens sake! it's obvious the guy is only an occasional editor but you don't seem to see it. ] (]) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:Let's just disagree about LemonMonday and whatever other socking is going on. I've no problem with taking editors in Good Faith and I've no problem with editors taking a different line or having a different opinion. The last couple of months on BISE with TFWOR's active involvement has really calmed things down and with the personal abuse out of the way, there's a lot more effort going into looking at usage from different angles. --] (]) 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

== WP: BISE ==

Howdy LB. It's the timing that's crippling your proposal. I don't recall you being at the discussion for ''British Isles'' application to the ] article's geography section. If ya weren't there? then this is likely a case of 'you snooze, you loose'. ] (]) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to continue to oppose your proposals for the articles ] & ]. Firstly, due to the timing of the proposals. Secondly, 'cause ] & ] are being excluded. ] (]) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. As you recently commented in the ] regarding the ongoing usage and trial of ], this is to notify you that there is an ''']''' with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. ''']''' on this issue is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0073 -->

== ] ==

was not acceptable. You know perfectly well to comment on content, not contributors, and speculating about motives (''"Do I smell policy shopping in some of the above responses? I think so."'') was a clear comment on editors' motives and added absolutely nothing to the debate. ] 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:Well OK then. How about if I just say - If you try hard enough you can always find a reason to use some term other than British Isles, and boy! are some people trying hard at the moment! ] (]) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::How about you just stick to relevant, on-topic arguments for or against using the term, and leave the editorialising for the pub? Seriously, knock it off. None of this is news to you, you shouldn't have to be reminded about this. ] 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I think I can write this sort of stuff on my Talk page can't I? Or are you imposing some other rule here? I stand by what I've said, and it should be reported somewhere. There is a small group of editors who appear to be stonewalling all suggestions for inclusion and all suggestions against removal. ] (]) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Per the heading (above: "]") I'm talking about at WT:BISE, a page for "discussing issues surrounding the term British Isles", not for editorialising about your views on other editors. There are plenty of mechanisms available for discussing editors. WT:BISE is not one of them, as I am certain you know. ] 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

==]==
{| align="left"
|| ]
|}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ]. Thank you. ] (]) 13:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:Seeing as you & TR posted at 17:25 today, that should help in the SPI case. ] (]) 17:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::The funniest thing about all this is that some guy actually sat down and spent hours of his life writing that shite. I presume you are not offended at me writing shite on your talk page? Everyone else does. --] (]) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it's hilarious. The time spent is amazing - almost as amazing as the stupidity of the arguments. We all know who the real socks are, but they continue to get away with it. No problem with shite on this page - it's already full of it and will no doubt attract a great deal more. ] (]) 18:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm glad you two are ''finally'' chatting with each other, as these are Triton Rocker's first posts to this page... ever. LevenBoy's only post to Triton Rockers's page was in his absence. It didn't take that many hours, really, and nothing good was on TV. Hey, if I'm wrong: sincerest apologies, gentlemen, and I mean that. I have no problem looking at sockpuppetry on the anti-BI side, as I am quite neutral in this whole fierce debate. Hopefully if I do, it won't be considered "shite". Cheers :> ] (]) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

::::It was only a matter of time before they picked on you mate. The whole pro republican bias on Misplaced Pages is nothing but a joke now and has brought the whole project into disrepute. As someone who has edited successfully here for years using both IP's and registered user names, I am quite familiar with their tactics. Good luck!

::::Ps Watch them swoop!! lol --] (]) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thank you Blue! I agree with everything you say. As you've obviously noticed, some of the anti-BI editors are extremely persistent, but it's good that they're well and truly bogged down at the moment over at the BISE page. Will no doubt be seeing you at another SPI fairly soon, I'll wager. Good hunting! ] (]) 19:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

== IoM ==

As you addressed one Isle of Man topic, you might consider the another one and check Rannpháirtí anaithnid's edit. I cant see why they removed its status as a dependency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Geography_of_the_Isle_of_Man

Thank you. --] (]) 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he's right with that edit. The IoM isn't part of the UK, though it is part of the British Empire. The info box doesn't fit well with oddities like IoM. ] (]) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

== "At the risk of being snipped" ==

{{diff|1=Misplaced Pages talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples|2=386733670|3=386733428|4=I've "snipped" you.}} You were clearly aware that your comment would be less than acceptable. If you repeat nonsense like that I'll start ], until the message sinks in - don't comment on the issue at hand, don't editorialise. I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. You are increasingly giving the impression that you regard this as a game. It isn't - it's a serious project, to write a balance encyclopaedia. Serious on-topic arguments only. ] 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:Ha! To write a balanced encyclopedia. That's got to be the biggest joke ever. ] (]) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''5 days''' for After being warned earlier today to strictly abide by civility and other talk page guidelines you have continued to breach them. As exampled . Do not describe other editors edits as vandalism unless it conforms to ] and do not refer to their comments using offensive language. These are breaches of ] and ]. And since the area you were working in is related to a topic under probation (the British Isless naming dispute) and (in the case of Northern Ireland) ArbCom resolutions (see 'the Troubles' RfAr), policy is strictly enforced.<br/>Your post on my talk page which is also in violation of said policies (do not characterize an uninvolved admins' enforcement of policy as harassment - that assumes bad faith, is incivil and is inaccurate) drew my attention to this. Having already been blocked for 48 hours for the same violations in an are under probation this block is escalated to 5 days. If another admin feels this is too harsh please go ahead and reduce it.. 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 the ] first. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)</div>
*I have removed the privilege of being able to edit the talkpage, following the posts below and at WP:ANI. The purpose of a block is to stop an account from being able to contribute to the wider project; advocating for a specific comment to be added to another forum circumvents that intent. Should you wish to contest this block you may email another admin for review - you may email me, but it would be a waste of time - or unblock/arbcom-en. Likewise, any reviewing admin may at their discretion remove or vary this talkpage privilege withdrawal without further reference to me. ] (]) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== Need someone to add this to AN/I ==

Anybody watching this please assist:

I was in the process of posting the following text to AN/I when I was blocked by an "involved" admin who should know better (I won't be appealing against this block because such appeals are never handled appropriately). Please add this text to AN/I on my behalf. Thanks. ] (]) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

''The Giant's Causeway is in the country of ], a consituent country of the sovereign state known as the ]. Regardless of these well-known facts that are used in very many articles, a hard-core group of editors are currently intent on changing this basic geography within the Giant's Causeway info-box such that the country is given as United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is relegated to a region. In no sense of the word is Northern Ireland a region and I have never heard it described as such. I cannot understand the motivation of the editors who are pushing this POV. I thought it was Irish nationalism, but this doesn't really fit the bill, other than to deny the existence of Northern Ireland as a country (not a state) in its own right. Could an uninvolved editor please look at this, and I would strongly urge editors/admins from within the British Isles to leave this one alone. Thanks'' ] (]) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst levenboys comments are clearly problematic, i do not think its right an involved admin issues a long block like this. This block followed a comment by levenboy on the admins talkpage mentioning raising things at AN/I. Blocks should really only be applied by uninvolved admins. ] (]) 20:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I have no problem with this going to ANi for review--] <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

*Just for passers by I am not ]. I have not contributed to the articles in which LB is working on and have not been in revert or content disputes with them. I have enforced policy with reference to a topic area under probation (]). Secondly I did not block LB for his post to my page I did however point out its inappropriateness. LB is blocked for making an incivil comment after warning to cease this type of behaviour--] <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
** You are involved. That is clear. ] (]) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

::The {{tlx|unblock}} template is the proper way to appeal a block - not taking it to ANI. However as a an uninvolved admin, I think you'd be wasting your time. This was a solid, earned block. I would decline such an appeal as would most admins. ] <small>(])</small> 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Well I wasn't proposing to take a block appeal to AN/I, if you read what I said. I was actually writing the text noted above, about Giant's Causeway, when I was blocked between the time I started typing and pressing the Save page button. maybe you could oblige? ] (]) 21:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::ANI is not the place to bring a content dispute, especially a ] one. ] <small>(])</small> 21:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: Anyone else care to pick this one up - just putting the issue at AN/I I mean. The guy above doesn't understand the difficult underlying issues. ] (]) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Consider it posted mate. --] (]) 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Howdy LB. Never let a blocked editor's sock, help you out. ] (]) 13:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's time someone put that O Fenian and his entourage back into their box...for good! PS. Have to go now before the block brigade go to arms! lol--] (]) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== Don't accuse me of sockpuppetry when you've no evidence ==

LevenBoy, I have been off Misplaced Pages for quite a while (as you can see from my contribs). It's only as a pure fluke that I came across your accusation but I assure you this one thing: '''I am not HighKing, or any other user on this site but myself.''' HK's edits aren't even remotely like mine. Neither are Bjmullan's or anyone else's! My edits are centred around aviation articles. Not BI. In fact in the past year I've completely distanced myself from all this crap. I think that we all have better things to be doing here than arguing over a stupid term.

Anyway I ask you not to make an accusation like that again when you don't even have the slightest bit of evidence to back your point. Doing so is a clear breach of ]. With all due respect, ] <sup>(] <span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32; ])</sup> 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:Well actually I do have some evidence, though I admit it's a bit flimsy, but nevertheless interesting. I guess you may well not be HighKing but perhaps you could comment on this; Wikistalk shows both you and HighKing to have edited (and maybe have the page watched) an obscure article about some almost unknown celebrity called ], plus there are other overlaps which are, well, less interesting. What do you reckon? ] (]) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::I should also point out that your edit was a long way in time from HighKing's and you both reverted vandalism, so it does look like at least one of you is watching the page. If I was a betting man I'd put money on you not being a sock or even a meat, but that you know HighKing in real life. From yours and HK's edits it's a fair bet you come from the same part of the world, so maybe you sit at adjacent desks at work or something like that - who knows, apart from you and HighKing. ] (]) 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::LevenBoy, I only reverted vandalism on that article once while patrolling recent changes! I've never even heard of this Jaden Smith! Also I don't know any Wikipedian in real life, including HighKing! I don't know what makes you think this, really.

:::P.S. Sorry that I double-posted this topic. My internet connection is frustratingly slow at the moment :( --] <sup>(] <span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32; ])</sup> 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Just after seeing that I posted the topic multiple times. I hate 2G broadband! --] <sup>(] <span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32; ])</sup> 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

== ANI post ==

] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== Alone at BISE ==

It's very difficult for me, when arguing for 'British Isles' addition, when you & TR continue to volunteer for forced wiki-breaks. ] (]) 14:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== ANi September 26, 2010 ==

I have opened a thread to discuss placing you and Triton Rocker on a six month civility parole at ]. As you are currently blocked if you wish to make a brief to the point comment ''relating to the thread on ANi'' please do so below. Please note inappropriate remarks will not be moved there, as will comments that fail ]--] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:Note: editor cannot answer, as talkpage access was revoked. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

psssst....need any help?] (]) 15:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Seen this cover up? --] (]) 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

== Civility parole ==


:I think he's being ironic. ] (]) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Per consensus at the ] you are being placed under civility parole (sometimes described as "civility restriction" or "civility supervision" as explained on ]), per remedy CP01 as listed on the ]. The following is an explanation of the terms of this sanction: <blockquote>''You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be ], ], or ].''</blockquote> If I am either unwilling, unable, or unavailable to deal with an appeal of this sanction then: I will approve for this restriction to be reviewed by the community as long as you have not violated it for a period of six consecutive months of activity on wikipedia. This does not prevent you from any other normal editing on Misplaced Pages, however it requires that your behaviour match both the spirit and the letter of site policies and guidelines as regards the civility of your edits and your general conduct--] <sup>]</sup>23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


== RIRA == == Emails ==


<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>
You may be interested in the obstructive reverts by pro IRA sympathisers at ] --] (]) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (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)
It appears that it is an attempt by O Fenian to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given. --] (]) 10:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
:Please note that the above ip is a sockpuppet of blocked vandal ]. Any concerns regarding other editors contributions should only be handled according to WP policy and guideline, and not assumed allegiances. ] (]) 21:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


== "Polls" == == July 2011 ==
<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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->


== ] ==
{{diff2|389901300|This was sadly predictable}}. There is a world of difference - as I'm damn certain you realise - between discussing a term that may or may not be gradually replacing another term in common usage, and discussing the constitutional status of various dependencies. The edit I reverted was ]y, as well as wrong. Don't pull a stunt like that again. ] 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi,<br>
Why won't ya agree to move your polls to the BISE's mainpage? ] (]) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
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 -->

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:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. 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:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. 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)

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)

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

You have been blocked 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 WP:GS/BI 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 make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)