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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Seeing as the blocking administrator appears to be offline and a CheckUser has proven the accounts are unrelated, I am unblocking with no prejudice to reblock if sufficient evidence is provided linking this account to other abusive ones. Request handled by: Tiptoety talk 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Try this...

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

Like this ;-)

TFOWR 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 think an indefinite block is harsh when you consider what's happened. I have merely commented on various issues. Please review my comments shown in the diffs noted by User:Jehochman. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that my comments could be regarded as provocative (actually I admit that in some cases they were meant to be, but not in all cases). I have not been disruptive in the article space (e.g no edit warring) even though my comments could have led to increased tension elsewhere. If I'm unblocked I'll stay away from WP:ANI and will moderate my tone elsewhere, to a level I would hope all users would find acceptable. I would like to be able to raise an RfC about what's happening at BISE, as suggested by User:TFOWR. In so doing I guarantee that I'll stick to the facts of the matter

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 think an indefinite block is harsh when you consider what's happened. I have merely commented on various issues. Please review my comments shown in the diffs noted by [[User:Jehochman]]. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that my comments could be regarded as provocative (actually I admit that in some cases they were meant to be, but not in all cases). I have not been disruptive in the article space (e.g no edit warring) even though my comments could have led to increased tension elsewhere. If I'm unblocked I'll stay away from WP:ANI and will moderate my tone elsewhere, to a level I would hope all users would find acceptable. I would like to be able to raise an RfC about what's happening at BISE, as suggested by [[User:TFOWR]]. In so doing I guarantee that I'll stick to the facts of the matter |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 think an indefinite block is harsh when you consider what's happened. I have merely commented on various issues. Please review my comments shown in the diffs noted by [[User:Jehochman]]. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that my comments could be regarded as provocative (actually I admit that in some cases they were meant to be, but not in all cases). I have not been disruptive in the article space (e.g no edit warring) even though my comments could have led to increased tension elsewhere. If I'm unblocked I'll stay away from WP:ANI and will moderate my tone elsewhere, to a level I would hope all users would find acceptable. I would like to be able to raise an RfC about what's happening at BISE, as suggested by [[User:TFOWR]]. In so doing I guarantee that I'll stick to the facts of the matter |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 think an indefinite block is harsh when you consider what's happened. I have merely commented on various issues. Please review my comments shown in the diffs noted by [[User:Jehochman]]. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that my comments could be regarded as provocative (actually I admit that in some cases they were meant to be, but not in all cases). I have not been disruptive in the article space (e.g no edit warring) even though my comments could have led to increased tension elsewhere. If I'm unblocked I'll stay away from WP:ANI and will moderate my tone elsewhere, to a level I would hope all users would find acceptable. I would like to be able to raise an RfC about what's happening at BISE, as suggested by [[User:TFOWR]]. In so doing I guarantee that I'll stick to the facts of the matter |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}