Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 6 September 2010

December 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:British Isles are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic, or comments about the editing style of other contributors. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk 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. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you! However, maybe you should also take out the precediing comment making an accusation of trolling? LevenBoy (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Armagh

See Misplaced Pages:Consensus. 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. O Fenian (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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. LevenBoy (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule 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 three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. If there is disagreement you must seek agreement on the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2009 (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. purple (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British Isles. Note that the three-revert rule 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

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.MITH 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just read that section. There is no agreement at all for the changes you made. LevenBoy (talk) 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.MITH 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. LevenBoy (talk) 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.MITH 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Derry. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule 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 edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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.Canterbury Tail talk 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! Mister Flash (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Derry - 1RR Imposition

Please read Talk:Derry#1RR_on_City_Walls_edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge and his son murdered by terrorists.

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

Proposed deletion of List of extinct animals of the British Isles

The article List of extinct animals of the British Isles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incorrect redirect

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HighKing (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tooting Bec Lido

I have made some minor changes to the above page (and Tooting Bec). I was reading the discussion Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples#Tooting_Bec_and_Tooting_Bec_Lido and have have added a few remarks. Hope this is useful.--Lidos (talk) 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? LevenBoy (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the one in Penzance, Cornwall?--Lidos (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of extinct animals of the British Isles

I have nominated List of extinct animals of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. HighKing (talk) 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, Black Kite 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. Black Kite 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. 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 (coṁrá) 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Footyfanatic3000 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Volunteers

Ahh LB, if only it were that easy. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bjmullan

You may be interested in the WP:AN/I thread regarding User:Bjmullan'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.Camelbinky (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick of time

FYI see here --Snowded 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

While I was aware the editing of this article by User:Bjmullan 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 reason:

This ridiculous Derry-vs-Londonderry dispute/edit war has been going on for years (see WP:LAME#Ethnic and national feuds) 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 WP:NOTTHEM. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

WT:BISE

I have removed a comment you posted, here. 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. TFOWR 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. LevenBoy (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

The language used in this post 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 WP:CIVIL. I advise you to strike those comments and modify your language in future. Scolaire (talk) 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. TFOWR 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want more evidence of LB making accusation you should also look at this edit. Bjmullan (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If ya got any frustrations? let'em out on me, I can take it. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BISE and breach of WP:GS/BI sanction at FourFourTwo

Please self-revert at FourFourTwo ASAP to avoid a topic-ban or block. --HighKing (talk) 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. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)