User talk:LevenBoy

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia: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^TALK 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

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Derry. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. [1] --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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 ^TALK 13:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for edit warring on McKownville, New York as discussed on ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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)

BISE and Leading sire in North America

Just to let you know I have reverted your edit here and taken the discussion to WP:BISE, the place you should have started at. Maybe you could explain your edit there. Bjmullan (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you think you are in the right why not revert me? You are very aware that WP:BISE is there to allow people to discuss and reach consensus on the use of BI. Bjmullan (talk) 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. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If he's allowed to add it without discussion at WP:BISE what it the point of it? If it was HK doing it the other way around would you be saying the same? Bjmullan (talk) 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? LevenBoy (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's no edit-warring, cool. GoodDay (talk) 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? LevenBoy (talk) 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Talk:Republic of Ireland

LevenBoy, can I ask you again to behave like a grownup not to be provocative? What is this? 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? Scolaire (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for you to remove the sentence from the geography section, it was perfectly justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 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. Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockery stuff

I've responded at my talkpage, 'tis best to keep discussions in one place. GoodDay (talk) 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. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continued incivlity and personal attacks after 4 warnings[2]. This account has continued to make edits in breach of the talk page guidelines, as well as the civility and no personal attacks policies. You have been blocked for 48 hours for breaching these policies. If you wish to appeal this block please use the unblock template.
These are the relevant diffs in violation of the above polices.[3][4].
I would also point out that the edit summary used in the removal of the warnings on September 6th[5] 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.
Once this block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to request to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• For reference for any reviewing sysop this edit was made after everyone was asked not to comment there until User:Triton_Rocker is unblocked by User:Beeblebrox [6] (who had just revoked TritonRocker's ability to post to their talk page while blocked)--Cailil ^talk 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[7]--Cailil ^talk 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I've been blocked! Never mind, I'm not now.

User:LemonMonday

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 WP:DUCK 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. LevenBoy (talk) 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. --HighKing (talk) 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 Ireland article's geography section. If ya weren't there? then this is likely a case of 'you snooze, you loose'. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to continue to oppose your proposals for the articles Great Britain & Ireland. Firstly, due to the timing of the proposals. Secondly, 'cause Channel Islands & Isle of Mann are being excluded. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll 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. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

This comment 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. TFOWR 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! LevenBoy (talk) 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. TFOWR 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. LevenBoy (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the heading (above: "WT:BISE") 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. TFOWR 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LevenBoy. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you & TR posted at 17:25 today, that should help in the SPI case. GoodDay (talk) 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. --Triton Rocker (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 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[8]. 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 :> Doc9871 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 --Blue is better (talk) 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! LevenBoy (talk) 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/wiki/Geography_of_the_Isle_of_Man

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"At the risk of being snipped"

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 blocking, 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. TFOWR 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! To write a balanced encyclopedia. That's got to be the biggest joke ever. LevenBoy (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked 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 here. Do not describe other editors edits as vandalism unless it conforms to WP:VANDALISM and do not refer to their comments using offensive language. These are breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. 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.
Your post on my talk page[9] 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 make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cailil ^talk 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Giant's Causeway is in the country of Northern Ireland, a consituent country of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom. 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 LevenBoy (talk) 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. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this going to ANi for review--Cailil ^talk 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just for passers by I am not "involved". 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 (WP:GS/BI). 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[10] after warning to cease this type of behaviour[11]--Cailil ^talk 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are involved. That is clear. LevenBoy (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{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. Toddst1 (talk) 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? LevenBoy (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to bring a content dispute, especially a WP:LAME one. Toddst1 (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider it posted mate. --87.113.140.16 (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy LB. Never let a blocked editor's sock, help you out. GoodDay (talk) 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--87.114.30.31 (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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

LevenBoy, I have been off Wikipedia 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 AGF. With all due respect, Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 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 Jaden Smith, plus there are other overlaps which are, well, less interesting. What do you reckon? LevenBoy (talk) 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. LevenBoy (talk) 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 :( --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just after seeing that I posted the topic multiple times. I hate 2G broadband! --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI post

was that you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 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. GoodDay (talk) 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 WP:ANi. 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 WP:NOTTHEM--Cailil ^talk 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: editor cannot answer, as talkpage access was revoked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Seen this cover up? [12] --87.113.177.162 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole

Per consensus at the administartor's noticeboard you are being placed under civility parole (sometimes described as "civility restriction" or "civility supervision" as explained on WP:RESTRICT), per remedy CP01 as listed on the British Isles probation log. The following is an explanation of the terms of this sanction:

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 uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

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 Wikipedia, 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--Cailil ^talk23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)