User talk:LemonMonday

To User:Angus McLellan. You've made a mistake I'm afraid. Get a checkuser and you'll see I'm not User:EmpireForever. I suggest you don't "shoot first and ask questions later" and you shouldn't really make the type of assumption that you just have. As an admin you should take more care. So please check it out and unblock this account and remove the warning on EmpireForever's page. LemonMonday (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are, and if I had had even the slightest doubt it'd be gone now. IP addresses prove nothing. Anyone can switch networks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* - they're actually both quite  Unrelated, I'm afraid - Alison ^❤ 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Empire! I appear to have got you an uncalled-for warning as a result of an admin who is not up to the job. All I can suggest is that you ride out your block until tomorrow. The block is also not a problem for me. I'll get a new IP address when I get around to it. Apologies again. LemonMonday (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison is usually very on. However, I will ask Angus what the evidence is. It does not appear obvious from the respective accounts' edit histories. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Previous consensus agreement here and there is much discussion afterwards. If you have suggestions for alternation please take them to the talk page and do not baton pass reverts. --Snowded TALK 09:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Any more reverting and you'll be blocked. Waggers (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But not by you because you have an interest here!! And please direct your threats to the other editors as well - Snowded for instance. LemonMonday (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing referenced material is vandalism, so this isn't a simple case of 3RR / content dispute. I'm glad to see you've now entered the talk page discussion; please ensure there is consensus there for Tharky's version before you revert to it again. Waggers (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, removing referenced material IS NOT vandalism. Please look up the policy to see what is. There could be many justifications for removing referenced material. LemonMonday (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Regarding your comments on User talk:HighKing: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. HighKing (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to onlookers- HK has a history of intimidating others with templates erroneously, or accusing them of 'personal atacks', if they make any criticism of his edits. It does not reflect on the person given one of his "warnings" etc. Sticky Parkin 20:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to onlookers. Sticky has a history of sticking his nose into other peoples business, unasked, and usually incorrectly. If asked to back up any of his claims, he can't. And he obviously hasn't a clue what constitutes a personal attack. As an example... Hey, Sticky, please show me an example of where Lemon made a criticism of my edits. Go on.... --HighKing (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This comment from User:HighKing is a personal attack. LemonMonday (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss

LM, I notice that you have been reverting edits without any discussion - namely Rainforest, Doyle, Alexander Thom. Your edits appear designed to introduce the term "British Isles" into articles, against the principals and guidelines being worked on in WP:BISLES. Finally, you are reverting my edits by claiming that they are "Politically Motivated" - a charge that is completely untrue and without foundation. Can you discuss the edits and also back up your allegations. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blue Bugle for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. HighKing (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This account has been blocked for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blue Bugle for the evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sockpuppetry? On what basis? You are making assumptions that are not valid and seem to be assuming bad faith. Instead of blocking users who attempt to challenge the activities of User:HighKing you should look closely at what he's doing. I request this block be removed. There is not a shred of evidence that I'm a sockpuppet and I'm fed up of being accused of one. I'm just one of many editors who are trying to limit the damage caused by HighKing. My edits are perfectly reasonable and at worst could be regarded as content disputes

Decline reason:

Agree with assessment of Jehochman at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blue Bugle. — Cirt (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Quote from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks; "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation". Yes, assume bad faith. Wikipedia may as well abandon WP:AGF. Heresay evidence - well, not even evidence, has caused the incorrect assumption of wrong-doing. The type of editing by users such as User:HighKing will inevitably attract a significant response from multiple users and this may, as here, appear to be sockpuppetry. See the top of this page for a similar example (User talk:EmpireForever).

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking stated. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Apologies, reason not given above. My reason for requesting unblocking is that this account is not a sockpuppet. If you unblock it you can review future edits to make a more considered judgement than that which has already been made on a limited number of edits. I can't, of course, speak for the actions of other users who still might act in a manner to arouse suspicion against this and other accounts, but at least you could give me the benefit of the doubt.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, since sockpuppets almost always deny that they are sockpuppets, we have to look, not only at the word of the editor, but also at the evidence in the edits. In this case, I'd agree that the evidence suggests that you are User:Blue Bugle. That you seem to clearly state, above, that your account exists to undo edits by User:HighKing is another piece in the puzzle, but not one that supports your claim to be a different editor. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 October 2008 (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.

{unblock|1=Well I'm not a sockpuppet, but I can't speak for Blue Bugle other than to say he's not a sock of mine. You won't give me the benefit of the doubt so I've no alternative but to become a sockpuppet! A sockpuppet of the now defunct LemonMonday. I and others will continue in due course to challenge the edits of the disruptive HighKing until such time as he's prevented from damaging this project further. You admins really need to get sorted. Instead of bothering about the likes of me you should be dealing with the likes of HighKing, but from the dialogue above there seems little chance of it. You are all more concerned with procedure than content. Goodbye from LemonMonday.}} In my opinion, three unblock reviews are sufficient. I have protected this talk page to prevent further use of the unblock template. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry, FisherQueen - I've unprotected this page for a short while. LemonMonday - we're just running some further checks here. This isn't over yet. Can you pmail me please? - Alison ^❤ 21:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi LemonMonday,

A number of other checkusers have reviewed the Blue Bugle case and have determined that the result, rather than being possible, is  Unlikely. I have unblocked your account, and apologize for all the hassle and confusion. However, can you please stop following around User:HighKing and undoing his edits, otherwise you stand a fair chance of being reblocked on behaviour. Sorry about all the trouble here - Alison ^❤ 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking again at this. However, as I log back on I see HighKing is involved in yet more disputes. I am going to request references for the changes he is making. LemonMonday (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to concur with the entirety of the above statement. Your first action on being unblocked was to recommence reverting HighKing despite Alison's very clear request that you stop. Whether or not you are a sockpuppet, please immediately stop this behaviour: any continuation will, I think, swiftly see you blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with both this editor and TharkunColl who between them are not only reversing removal of BI, but are actively inserting it. This is as bad as removal for its own sake and its pretty obvious that its a political crusade rather than one based on geography. --Snowded TALK 09:55, 11 October 2008 (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 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted once. Hardly edit warring. LemonMonday (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting on British Isles naming issues

Since you have posted on my talk page, I assume you will be aware of this, but just in case; to prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [1]. Your edits this morning would have been met with a block had you already been left this message. Please do not repeat them. Thanks, Black Kite 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

You were incorrect to revert both those articles. As my edit summary sai, all the sources I can find refer to Nothofagus_alpina as growing only on the mainland - hence "Great Britain". If you can find a source that says it grows in Ireland/NI then insert it and feel free to restore "British Isles". As for the moth - you removed the only source in the article because it didn't suit your ends. That's not acceptable. The source was from Great Britain (more specifically England, which I've now changed it to). Again, if you can find a source from Ireland, then fine. I've a complete disinterest in whether the phrase used is "British Isles" or anything else, but I suggest you find sources to ensure that the phrase is correct. Black Kite 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• And another one ... again, restoring a useless piece of information purely for political ends. I think we're approaching the realms of desliberate disruption now, to be honest. Black Kite 12:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:BISE

You made a comment at WT:BISE which I removed here. TFOWR 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, we can't be having any criticism of these POV pushers, can we. LemonMonday Talk 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not on WT:BISE. Its purpose it to discuss terminology. There are plenty of venues that are far more appropriate. Discussing your opinion of other editors' possible POVs at WT:BISE is off-topic and divisive. TFOWR 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And again here. This isn't Facebook or Myspace, we're trying to build an encyclopaedia. If you don't have constructive, on-topic comments to make - don't post. I really don't plan on "snipping" your comments forever - I really do not have the patience. If the seriousness of this doesn't sink in fast the next step will be a topic ban preventing you from posting at WT:BISE. TFOWR 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good route to take LM. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw it. LemonMonday Talk 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure you know the drill: WP:ANI#British Isles (I'm so sorry, really I am...). TFOWR 22:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

your sig

Yellow on white is illegible and I strongly suggest you change it immediately. It's annoying and it strains credulity that this is not your intent. I noticed it on ANI, where a similar comment was made. Jack Merridew 23:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't sympathize with people's complaints about conspicuous signatures, but yours actually hurts my eyes. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll third that, please edit it to bring it into compliance with WP:SIG. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. I have darn good vision, but I can't read your sig. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"It hurts your eyes" (!) Come off it! Anyway, I've changed it to more readable colours. I haven't yet learned how to alter the background to have yellow on black or similar. LemonMonday Talk 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

<coming off it> Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Try this...

<span style="color: yellow; background: black; padding: 2px;">Like this ;-)</span>

Like this ;-)

TFOWR 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As a person with some serious eyesight problems, it's not the signature itself that 'hurts my eyes' but the attempt to bring it into focus. Thanks for changing it, and yellow against a dark gray or dark blue or green would look good. →StaniStani  18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you now also change the Talk bit of it as well please. It still causes the same problem. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (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. --HighKing (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No edit-conflicts

Wowsers, we didn't edit-conflict this time (hahaha). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You've account is blocked for 24 hours due to tag-team edit warring,[2] assuming bad faith and disruptive editing by way of WP:HEAR and WP:BATTLE.[3] Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Only just found out. No problem, given I didn't know about it and it's now expired. LemonMonday Talk 16:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Only warning

This is your only warning for making edits like this which are harrassing, threatening, fail to assume good faith, and once again displays a battleground mentality. Further edits like this that are out of line with this project's core behavioural policies will be prevented.
Remarks such as

This is a very dangerous game you're embarking on TFOWR. It really does look at though there's a campaign to silence certain editors

are utterly inappropriate, do not repeat that knd of comment on wikipedia.--Cailil ^talk 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore there have been a series of threads started about the same issue which is beginning to look like an attempt to "ask the other parent" this is itself a violation of policy. The issue of TritonRocker's sanction has been publicly dealt with 3 times on 2 boards. "Forum shopping" will not be tolerated--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

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. The thread is WP:RFC/MATH moved. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On the recent RfC moves

I think you are severely underestimating what would be needed to move an RfC page. First the bot would need to be updated so it knows about it, and I doubt that's a simple action. Bots are not like pages, and relatively few people understand them. You would need to discuss it with the Bot's author to see how easy it is. Then there are many pages that link to the RfC, as well as templates which are again non-trivial to update.

Because of all this it should really be done in coordination with other editors, especially those experienced in RfC. You should raise it at the RfC talk page WT:RFC, so see if there is agreement on the change and then to coordinate action on it. You may find there are other issues I've not thought of, but at minimum I think there would be a lot of work to make this change.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe what you've said here should be placed as a comment on the page, or as an editing comment. Also, it might be appropriate to block page moves on these types of page if such moves have knock-on effects that are not immediately apparent. LemonMonday Talk 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's you that wants to move the page, so it's you that needs to explain to other editors why the change is needed and then coordinate with them on moving the page. I don't have any particular view, I just though the problems caused by your move needed fixing. I would also note that there are redirects that deal with the British/US bias issue. For example if anyone typed in all of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Math, natural science, and technology it would go to the right page, and the shortcut most people probably use for maths RFCs is WP:RFC/MATH.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that. I'm saying that if a page move, on any page for that matter, but specifically this one, is going to cause problems then that fact should be posted somewhere, or moves should be blocked for the page in question. As for moving that page, it's such a minor issue that if it can't be handled without some complicated process being invoked then it's not worth it. LemonMonday Talk 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You could raise that there if you wanted, or put in a request for page protection yourself. I suspect it's not been done as they are not highly visible in the sense of being linked or transcluded from article pages, nor are they regular vandalism targets. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I think I'll leave it. It's not important. LemonMonday Talk 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker's ban

Howdy LM. Don't ya think TR should recognize his own part in getting blocked? Personally, his recent comments don't bother me in the slightest. But, I could tell immediately, that his comments at BISE were gonna get'em in trouble. Why didn't TR go 'right away' to a RfC over his 'month long block'? instead he goes right back into the BISE. You, LB and TR, no doubt by now, realize other editors don't have my indifferance & tolerance to such behaviour. Therefore, why are ya'll so determined to get yourselves blocked? when yas know what will get yas block. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, his recent comments don't bother me in the slightest. But then GoodDay no one has called you a disruptive, bad faith, lying editor recently have they? Bjmullan (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't bug me if they did. Best way to deal with such things, is to ignore it. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 II

Your account is disabled indefinitely, until such time as you communicate that you understand how to edit collaboratively and agree to stop making assumptions of bad faith and accusing other editors of impropriety without any basis, such as you did here. You were warned very recently,[4] and were also recently blocked.[5] You've been on notice and totally failed to heed any warnings.

Any administrator is free to unblock once the user acknowledges that they will follow Wikipedia policies, and that they will stop repeating the improper behavior. Please do not unblock until that requirement has been met. This is not a situation where they should be allowed to "wait it out" and then go right back to the offensive conduct. That's been tried before and failed, so now we shall try something a bit stricter. Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. LemonMonday Talk 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the terms of your unblock agreement here. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion. LemonMonday was supposed to avoid assumptions of bad faith. There was no requirement for them to avoid WP:AN/I, at least not as part of my unblock conditions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"If I'm unblocked I'll stay away from WP:ANI", per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LemonMonday&diff=prev&oldid=394215210. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I did agree that I would stay away from AN/I but I explained in my comment why I was making it and asked for an exception. In reality my agreement to stay away from AN/I was all about staying away from heated debates at that page. The blocking admin is perhaps being a bit hasty here.}}

Requesting comment by the blocking admin. While LemonMonday did not violate the letter of his promise to stay off WP:ANI (as he posted to WP:AN instead), his comment indicates that he was aware of violating the spirit of his restriction. Interestingly, also, he did edit ANI a few days ago, thereby also formally violating his unblock commitment. On the other hand, Jehochman, the admin who imposed the original block, does not seem to believe that a re-block was warranted. Moreover, I am not sure that the community customarily treats promises made on unblock as binding sanctions that are to be enforced irrespective of actual damage or disruption to the project. So I am not clear about what actual harm this block prevents. Maybe we could discuss that instead of formalities?  Sandstein  22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if he thought he was violating his agreement, but thought it necessary not only to do so, but also to do so in the face of a broad consensus, he's engaging in the same behavior that originally got him blocked, and hence the block should stand -- especially since it was commenting on the MickMacNee/Triton Rocker blocks that got him blocked in the first place. If you want to make another agreement with him that will avoid continuing disruption, I won't stand in the way of that new unblock agreement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I see that the ANI edit was the one that prompted the block in the first place. I am not sure, though, that I see how the edit for which he was blocked was a continuation of the problems for which he was blocked, that is, "making assumptions of bad faith and accusing other editors of impropriety without any basis"? He does not seem to do so in the edit at issue here, so possibly we could unblock with the understanding that a reblock will occur in the event of more bad faith problems? I'll turn the unblock request back on to get opinions by more admins, and will also ask Jehochman to comment.  Sandstein  07:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Sandstein, unblock please. The promise to stay off AN/I was gratuitous. He made it; it was not required as a condition of unblock. Gratuitous promises are not enforceable. Jehochman ^Talk 09:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the agreement has not been broken, and unblock is reasonable. I have read the thread, but have been previously wholly uninvolved. I feel that the next admin to come here, asuming that s/he agrees, should unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I was the next admin to come along. Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say this: Lemon Monday, you have a very bad habit of becoming involved in altercations between other editors. If you have ever watched what happens to the "third man in" in soccer/football, basketball, baseball, hockey - or any other sport, you will know that this is not typically going to have a positive ending. Comments can be helpful - aggressive ones are not, as this makes for a battleground. There are no "sides" on Wikipedia - it's all about WP:5P. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Common sense prevails. LemonMonday Talk 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we're wainting to see if common sense prevails. Anything resembling your past behaviours will result in us knowing you don't see common sense, and a block will prevail (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just so you are aware LM I've made a note on some serious issues with the RFC you raise on WP:BISE. I've asked 3 admins[6][7][8] (and I'm sure others watching this page will see this) to review this unblock if these issues, which include assumptions of bad faith and WP:DE (foum shopping again), are not corrected within a reasonable amount of time. You deserve the opportunity to raise an RFC but it has to be done in a proper, fair and evidenced way, not in the manner of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I want to ask your permission to re-write your RFC just a little so that non-involved individuals will be able to understand it. I don't think anyone outside off the usual small circle will get what all this "UK+I equals ... etc" mathematics type talk means. It is also clear from the comments you have received from the usual crowd that your point is not being made clearly enough or reaching more responsible people. I am only contacting you now because I have just been able to log on again and it was my intention to open up an RFC on exactly the same issue.

My God, your talk page is a warzone ... I see that you have been having exactly the same visitors as I have had! Please do not be intimidated by it all.

One question. It looks like to me that an RFC is just more of the same talk that happens on any talk page. Where do you go to get a definitive decision on a content or manual of style issue like this? I mean to say, this stuff is not a matter of opinion or common use, there are legal facts behind it. --LevenBoy (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LB, yes by all means re-write it as you think fit. It also concerns me that so far only the usual suspects have responded. It really needs to be opened up to hitherto non involved editors for some unbiased views. BTW, welcome back! I don't know Wikipedia well enough to say where you go to get any definitive decision on anything such as this. Everything is done by "consensus". As a start though, the RfC needs to be opened out. LemonMonday Talk 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I had a look at it and made a few suggests. Perhaps we should reframe it as a RfC from a group of editors rather than just yourself. Of course, I support it entirely.

I think the title of the question might need clarified but it is late here, I need to think about it and I want to avoid any petty accusations that I am being POV or whatever. Perhaps something as simple as "Use of the term British Isles", "Clarification of the use of the term British Isles" or "Substitution of the term British Isles by other terms".

Please edit as you see fit. We need fresh air and to involve others in this discussion. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy LM. I've said all I can on your RFC at British Isles concerning mentioning Britain and Ireland in that article's content. From here on, I hope more outsiders pop in on it, as us familiar faces from BISE won't likely ever have full agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree entirely but I think we have to go through the formality of the RfCs first.

LemonMonday, would you mind taking a stand on this issue because I feel Snowded is deliberate provoking a conflict here [9] and targeting me. [10][11] I don't want set up like Triton Rocker was.

I refined the RfC as we discussed. There is nothing in the refinement to change the context or content of the discussion. I don't even know what or if there is a "rule" as he claims. I suppose if he insists on being difficult, you can just close the first draft and re-open the second.

Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Its just normal courtesy, you set up a motion for discussion which is fine, but then you don't change it after other people have started to comment. As to provoking conflict or the idea that TR was set up, I suggest you ration paranoia to one day a month for your health's sake --Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Therefore it is not a rule. I thought not. Thank you for confirming that.

It is up to LemonMonday. We have discussed the matter. Please allow him to decide. If you think I have sinned, please report me.

The changes did nothing to the context but make it easily understandable for individuals who are not already mired in it. Who the hell is going to understand mathematics like B+I = BI or CI + IoM without it being explained to them (which I ought to do)? --LevenBoy (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Then start it up again with a form of words you are both comfortable with. --Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is up to LemonMonday now, not you. You really have no authority to go about changing others edits. At least have the courtesy to discuss things first. Thank you --LevenBoy (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All editors are equal, I have every right to reverse and edit if I think its misleading. If another editor persists, then rather than edit war I will note what they have done so other editors are aware. You really need (as does LemonBoy) to edit on a wider range of subjects, it might teach you better practice. --Snowded ^TALK 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's LemonBoy? GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question! Anyway, I'm not happy with Snowded and his reverting of LB's changes, which I gave him permission to make. I take the point that once a discussion has started it's probably not a good idea to rework the introduction, but I don't know of any rule or policy that bans it. Snowded's action was a bit provocative. Anyway, I think we need to restart these RfCs and broaden them out to cover more of the POV issues that are currently afflicting things British. As I noted earlier we are just attracting the usual suspects and we're not getting any useful unbiased opinions on the matter. Apart from what's happening with British Isles, other examples with might be classified as anti-British POV include the drive to stop Northern Ireland being referred to as a country, and the ongoing Londonderry problem. LemonMonday Talk 20:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Having an RfC on just one article (British Isles), pertains only to that one article. You need to attract a larger crowd, say a WikiProject. Also, it's gonna be difficult to keep out insiders when you & LB are also insiders. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

After 2 days, there seems no consensus in sight to get Britain and Ireland deleted or modified. I'd recommend closing the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute

I fixed it up so that it counts supports/opposes correctly. We don't need to say support or oppose as we're under those particularly sections. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't get the counting to work though. Do you know how to do it? LemonMonday Talk 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like HighKing's intermediate comments were causing the problem. LemonMonday Talk 21:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already fixed the problem. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you need clarification on

with this edit? Do you dispute the unionist majority in NI or the nationalist majority in ROI? Mo ainm~Talk 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I thought about cracking an Ireland United joke too but reckoned Bjmullan would just report me for it for something. It sounds like a great idea but they still would not beat Glasgow Rangers. --LevenBoy (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to answer what you are seeking clarification on, if not I will revert drive by tagging. Mo ainm~Talk 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's self explanatory, but I'll spell it out again - the word "slim" - what does that mean? Maybe you should find a reference giving actual figures, as Domer did for the other tag I placed. LemonMonday Talk 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE

Howdy LM. Would you please 're-open' that Hotel case at BISE? GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Being bold, I've Re-opened it. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)OK, I'll look at it later. I'd prefer discussion at the talk page though; saves all those headings and stuff. LemonMonday Talk 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not sure what the benefit will be. LemonMonday Talk 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Less stressful there. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice

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) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A finding in your favour would put an end to the SPI reports. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean like it did last time, and the time before that? LemonMonday Talk 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the same SPI, merely re-opened. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to speculate as to why a re-opening is being attempted? LemonMonday Talk 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's because an editor is suspected of sock-puppetry. That's usually why SPIs occur. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I asked you to stop making pointy remarks LM and you acknowledge the post[12]. These comments are not helpful[13][14]. Stop--Cailil ^talk 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, but come on. What would you make of it? You've got to admit that what's going on here - all over the place at the moment -really takes the biscuit. I said I'm trying to be civil and all the rest of it, acknowledging where mistakes are made, but there comes a point where something has to be said. LemonMonday Talk 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No there doesn't not on WP. This not a forum, not facebook and not a battleground. When something is being examined we don't need a running commentry. Let it go--Cailil ^talk 19:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Time is on my side

Wowsers, I was complaining earlier to Chip, about how you & LevenBoy make brief daily appearances on Wikipedia. Ya sure shot down my observation 'today'. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI: By real cause, I hope you're not suggesting 'Irish nationalism'. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, I haven't accused you & LB of being the same person. Besides, things seem to be shifting towards a 'review' of BISE. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope so, because as far as I can see it serves no useful purpose. "Real cause" - no I wasn't getting at any form on nationalism there. LemonMonday Talk 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

United Ireland

Hello, LemonMonday. I've been following your edits to United Ireland, especially the ones to the economic section. I think that section probably needs to be updated in light of the present economic situation in the Republic of Ireland. I have added some information about the ROI's 2010 deficit, the EU/IMF bailout etc. Perhaps you can take a look? Thank you. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil

Hi,

I have just returned from a few days away and have only skimmed recent developments on the British Isles renaming dispute, so excuse me if this is out of place. I really don't know why HighKing is on your case this time and what your history is with him, what your particular beef might be with Cailil, nor his with you, but I do have an overview of the whole British Isles thing, and this is just more of the time and resource wasting distraction. I encourage you not to get involved with it and just keep on editing productively.

HK's complaint was that I reverted Westward Ho!, which I did, and I acknowledged I could have handled it better, but he took it to AN/I; I consider that an over-reaction. LemonMonday Talk 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

However, if you have concerns that as, an administrator, Cailil has been sucked into the WP:BISE reality warp to his own detriment, I would like you to please raise it with him on his talk page directly. I have some serious concerns of my own and have recently opened a mediation request relating to them. Other users have raise their issues. If you do, and he refuses mediation with me, I believe it will strengthen taking case to WP:RFC/USER.

I'll see what happens with the AN/I. I don't believe I've a case to answer - maybe I did in the past, but not now. LemonMonday Talk 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the British Isle renaming dispute going anywhere and I think it will end up at WP:ARBCOM. It strikes me there is a consistent element to all this issues and it is really a knock on from the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dispute which also went to ARBCOM. In case you don't know, the "Arbitration Committee" is a panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors but before you get there, you really have to have exhausted ever other avenue of dispute resolution. It wont decide on content issues but it will decide on editorial conduct and it has authority over admins.

I agree. I think ARBCOM is the only solution left. This problem has been going on for long enough now and in reality nothing has changed for about three years. LemonMonday Talk 22:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of work to do and so I don't want to waste my time doing it before I have tried everything else. Thanks. --LevenBoy (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a care. Dispute resolution steps, such as RFC are not be used to gain tactical advantage in a content dispute; dispute resolution is only for making a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute. If your content dispute is in mediation, you should not be thinking about what else you can do to stress the user and get your way. The mediation committee will automatically refer the matter to arbitration (or RFC) if they see serious behavioral issues. Users plotting to misuse dispute resolution may be subject to sanctions for violating WP:BATTLE. I agree that WP:BISE is inexorably heading to arbitration. If you look at what happened in the Climate Change case, WP:ARB/CC, you will probably want to disinvolve yourself from the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over your MedCab request. It was not appropriate, so I have closed it. I recommend you both stop attempting to get vengeance against Cailil. You've both been recently blocked for disruptive activities. Banding together to attempt further disruption is not at all a good idea. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get vengeance over Cailil. Please show me where you think I have been. In the past I've criticised his abundant warnings but that's about it. Banding together? Again, please explain, given that I haven't yet responded to LevenBoy. LemonMonday Talk 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. If we are in agreement, then there is no chance of any problem. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you deleted material from the top of this page. I'd prefer to keep it as an archive, regardless of its accuracy. It's history now, but interesting in its own way. LemonMonday Talk 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys should really look at Arbcom cases - they only address behavioral issues of editors, they will not address content issues. In your shoes I'd build a track record of content edits over more than one subject, have an extended period without edit warring and generally stop launching reviews, attacking admins who are only trying to help etc. etc. Going to Arbcom with your current track records would be a risky process. --Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, please explain how your comment apply specifically to me , especially regarding edit warring. LemonMonday Talk 18:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

EWN report

You have been reported for 4 reverts on Belgium. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Belgium. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I was just typing this on the 3RR page when I was blocked, so I couldn't save it. Please unblock me if possible:

Sorry, I lost count. Only intended to go to three. I'll self revert, but see the discussion on the Talk page. I've really tried on this one! LemonMonday Talk 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was just typing this on the 3RR page when I was blocked, so I couldn't save it. Please unblock me if possible: Sorry, I lost count. Only intended to go to three. I'll self revert, but see the discussion on the Talk page. I've really tried on this one!

Decline reason:

You actually tell us that you were intending to edit-war to the 3-revert limit and then stop? It is difficult to imagine a situation in which I would unblock an editor who openly announces trying to work the system in that way. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:42, 4 December 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.

You only intended to go to three? You are aware that 3RR isn't an entitlement to three reverts? I appreciate that you have discussed the matter on the talk page, but while discussing, you need to stop reverting, no matter how many reverts you have "up your sleeve". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement. Considering you reported the other party for reverting once, I'm not personally inclined to unblock at this point. You can try filing a formal unblock request, if you think another admin will think differently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please look at how this started. I tried for BRD but the other editor disregarded it. I reported it at 3RR but it was rejected by someone who would take no action because it hadn't gone to three (or four)! I'll self revert, do you want something else? LemonMonday Talk 22:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek of Vulcan - you are an involved editor I think. LemonMonday Talk 22:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this to an unblocking admin (it'll get picked up soon from WP:RFU) because I'm not inclined to undo my own block for the reason that you know full well 3RR isn't an entitlement but treated it as such (and even broke it) anyway. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll self revert, I know it's not an entitlement and I said I shouldn't have have gone to the extent that I did. I engaged in full discussion on the matter. Blocks are not punitive, so why am I still blocked? LemonMonday Talk 22:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, but they are validly used as a measure to deter disruptive conduct. And as I said, you did discuss, but you continued to revert at the same time. That's disruptive. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But not as disruptive as reverting and not discussing, which I note was the tactic of the other party. LemonMonday Talk 22:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Which other party? Me? I have discussed it. I even asked you to offer alternatives. What's not to discuss? Its a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, methinks. Fmph (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've raised issues relating to the behaviour tht led to this block (ie reverting Fmph at article you, LM have never editted before) at ANI[15]--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Belgium - Climate

While you can't contribute to the talk page, would you like to suggest some alternatives. I'll add them to the article if they're acceptable. Fmph (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. If the user is blocked, let them contemplate the reasons and figure out how to change. Don't enable them this way. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Do you want to level out and fly right, or should we just ban you now to save further trouble? Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BISE

LemonMonday, I thought I would repeat here what I have already said to you on other article talk pages. As far as I am concerned the WP:BISE project is dead. I was the last person to post there on 6 February and before that it was the 3 December 2010 that there was any activity. There are many item there which have not been actioned and both the Admin's that were involved have disappeared. For my part I will continue to abide by the general WP guidelines and if I see articles that uses the term BI incorrectly I will discuss on the talk page and look at resolving the issue within WP guidelines.

You have say that you cannot be bother reporting me for what you consider violations but you seem to have the time to troll my edits and then reverting me using BRD as your excuse (while admitting the in the cases using BI could be wrong). You actions could be considered WP:Hounding. Bjmullan (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hounding

Can I ask you to stop hounding me. You have recently followed me about commenting on my motives rather than the content and have even taken out an AN/I here without any action being taken against me. This will be the the only time I ask. Bjmullan (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not hounding you. If I was, I'd be targetting all your edits, but has it escaped your notice that the only edits you make that I'm interested in are those where you're trying to remove British Isles? At the moment you are the only editor visibly working against the inclusion of British Isles in articles, which is why my comments might appear as hounding, but I can assure you they aren't. Stop working against British Isles and you'll find that I'm no longer interested in anything you do. LemonMonday Talk 14:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Neil Robertson (snooker player)

LemonMonday if you think the BISE is still active why have you gone against guidelines and added BI @ Neil Robertson (snooker player) without first getting approval? Is it a case of one rule for you and another for everyone else? Bjmullan (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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 almost certainly are aware you are breaking the rules but for forms sake --Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to like the odd edit war yourself. LemonMonday Talk 16:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice referencing content issues and policy then took it to the talk page. You on the other had have three reverts with no contributions to the talk page and with no edit summaries that address content issues. You are an SPA editor and it shows --Snowded ^TALK 17:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

British Isles

I see you are having the usual problems with anti British Isles POVery. Keep up the good work. LevenBoy (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are up to their filthy tag teaming, POV pushing, system gaming shite again. And I see a load of other drongos have now moved in on the act. LemonMonday Talk 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Monologue or dialogue on wonders? I suggest that both persona focus on content then we might make some progress. --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you've got something to say then say it. You might like to comment on user EliasPalmer - maybe? LemonMonday Talk 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

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 ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LemonMonday. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Armbrust. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. LemonMonday where do you get off using my name in an article I have not edited and accuse me of waging a campaign against any. My edit history speaks for it's self as does yours. Bjmullan (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks

You abusive tone on Talk:Neil Robertson (snooker player) is NOT ACCEPTABLE. If you continue insulting editors, you'll be blocked. Discuss the issue, not the editors. GedUK  11:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI of Irvine22

Why are you being so defensive about compulsive sock-master? GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I - Not assuming good faith

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your editing privileges have been suspended indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

There is no time limit on when you may feel inclined to stop making personal attacks on other editors, so your only recourse is to convince another admin that you will not do so in future. At that time you may be unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

OK, it's been over a month now and I feel it time for me to make amends. I'll refrain from all personal attacks from now on, so if you'll care to review this block I'd be grateful. You can of course monitor my future behaviour. My intention is just to edit articles and comment on their content, and not in any way on the editor. LemonMonday Talk 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, you have said the same before, and look where it has gotten the project. I suggest that perhaps the standard offer, which includes a minimum of 6 months without editing Wikipedia (even anonymously) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't know about the standard offer, but surely that is for the hardest cases to deal with? I admit my incivility but in the overall scheme of things it was nowhere near other cases. I've given an undertaking to desist immediately and ONLY comment on articles and content. You can block me permanently if I waver again. Furthermore, I'm happy to be placed on civility parole. Given these undertakings I can't see what purpose a further five months block will serve, other than as punishment, and as I read it these blocks are not for punitive reasons. Note that I have never been on civility parole, so maybe that should have been tried prior to an indef, or at least now in any event. I could see the need for longer blocks if I'd been in breach of civility parole, but such is not the case.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I didn't know about the standard offer, but surely that is for the hardest cases to deal with? I admit my incivility but in the overall scheme of things it was nowhere near other cases. I've given an undertaking to desist immediately and ONLY comment on articles and content. You can block me permanently if I waver again. Furthermore, I'm happy to be placed on civility parole. Given these undertakings I can't see what purpose a further five months block will serve, other than as punishment, and as I read it these blocks are not for punitive reasons. Note that I have never been on civility parole, so maybe that should have been tried prior to an indef, or at least now in any event. I could see the need for longer blocks if I'd been in breach of civility parole, but such is not the case. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I didn't know about the standard offer, but surely that is for the hardest cases to deal with? I admit my incivility but in the overall scheme of things it was nowhere near other cases. I've given an undertaking to desist immediately and ONLY comment on articles and content. You can block me permanently if I waver again. Furthermore, I'm happy to be placed on civility parole. Given these undertakings I can't see what purpose a further five months block will serve, other than as punishment, and as I read it these blocks are not for punitive reasons. Note that I have never been on civility parole, so maybe that should have been tried prior to an indef, or at least now in any event. I could see the need for longer blocks if I'd been in breach of civility parole, but such is not the case. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I didn't know about the standard offer, but surely that is for the hardest cases to deal with? I admit my incivility but in the overall scheme of things it was nowhere near other cases. I've given an undertaking to desist immediately and ONLY comment on articles and content. You can block me permanently if I waver again. Furthermore, I'm happy to be placed on civility parole. Given these undertakings I can't see what purpose a further five months block will serve, other than as punishment, and as I read it these blocks are not for punitive reasons. Note that I have never been on civility parole, so maybe that should have been tried prior to an indef, or at least now in any event. I could see the need for longer blocks if I'd been in breach of civility parole, but such is not the case. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You gave the same promise before. What's new that we can suddenly take you at your word this time? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing new really. The problem is I tend to edit in the British Isles area, and there is much provocation there with lots of system gaming going on (on all sides). Tempers fray all over the place, perhaps with me more than with some others. What can I say? I'll attempt to moderate my behaviour and tone, and I give the undertaking detailed above. You can watch my edits and put a block on if you think it necessary again. LemonMonday Talk 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)