User talk:Havengore

NB. All editing is always informed and constructive and extremely pro Wikipedia it is in the interests of other users and is totally undeserving of anyone's high handed tone this sort of attitude flies in the face of the pillars of Wikipedia and should be actively discouraged. I see you have only been editing for circa 6 years so are a relative 'new kid on the block' but nevertheless you should know that diplomacy is required and threatening other editors will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I won't be replying any further here unless you offer something of substance. The reason for the reversion of your additions has been made clear to you, and if you still don't understand it then there's nothing further I can offer. So please, try to listen to and understand what people are saying to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you have 'PERSONAL' attack' with GENERAL comments like 'egoes'? If you are going to be an editor on here you need to start thinking bigger and try to see others points of view. My posts following every rule to the letter were reverted for absolutely no reason at all which is well out of order and against the rules of the site any reversion should have been discussed with me first. So please try and see other people's points and not just your own. Also please try to listen to what you are being told by people who know what they are doing on here and are highly respected by other editors.Havengore (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not required to discuss the reversion with you first, and the reversion was not done "for absolutely no reason". The reasons were explained to you, and you were in breach of a number of Wikipedia rules - you were removing valid sourced information, not replying when asked why, and you were adding puffery terms and unsourced personal opinion/analysis. In short, you were trying to "big up" Mr Lamont, which seems to be your only interest here - and that is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. (I see you have finally worked out how to sign your posts, which is good - all you need to learn now is how to start them on a new line and indent them using ":") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have just reverted your refactoring of JamesBWatson's comment, above. You can remove entire messages from your talk page if you wish, but you must not edit comments to make them appear differently to the way the author originally posted them - and that includes no partial deletion of comments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You had no right to touch that. It appears you are just causing friction where there was none. You seem to want to damage the article and it's illustrious subject which is a disgrace to Wikipedia.
 * DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS TO ADD WORDS THAT I DID NOT SAY! I have reverted your addition. Continuing to refactor other people's comments is only making things worse for you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

WELL DO NOT BE CHEEKY IT IS JUST MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR YOU.

Colin Lamont
Wikipedia's standard is to use a subject's full name in the lede, and then just their surname when repeating their name in the body of the article - we do not use titles like "Mr". You have had that removed before, so please stop re-adding it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's manners to address people properly. Can we please have less carping because of your personal anger at being told off.
 * If you want to use "Mr" throughout the article, you would need to get the manual of style changed first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The appropriate way to address him repeatedly after the intro is just "Lamont", not "Mr Lamont" and not repeatedly "Colin Lamont". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * The section is Administrators' noticeboard -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GiantSnowman 19:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]](talk)

LAST WARNING TO YOU Boing! said Zebedee (talk) YOU HAVE REVERTED MORE THAN 3 TIMES FOR NO REASON ARE CLEARLY INVOLVED IN AN EDITING WAR AND WILL BE BANNED FOR LIFE FROM EDITING IF YOU DO NOT DESIST IMMEDIATELY. Havengore (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to stop with idle & baseless threats as well. GiantSnowman 19:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) There is no need for that GiantSnowman this is no concern of yours. Read the background before chipping in.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a disruptive single-purpose account as detailed at AN. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope my mind never get as tiny as this. You're welcome to it. Good Luck.

This is just sheer bloody-mindedness and should be unblocked right away there are NO examples of anything 'disruptive' and it is all trumped up by an editor with a history of this kind of disruptive behaviour against this editor. check it out and unblock with immediate effect thank you. Also this is a bitter tiny minded editor with no basis in fact who is waging a war against anyone else who edits this subject. Ask how he found out about the edits in the first place. His reversions are misguided and misplaced and he should have discussed them with others first before getting a 'soft' editor to do his bidding. thjis is nothing short of wanton vandalism he should be made to leave Wikipedia with immediate effect.
 * So you're trying to evade your block by editing logged out, are you? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee You should leave Wikipedia voluntarily as this sort of behaviour is holding up it's development. because the edit didn't suit you you ran to momma you have a lot to be ashamed of.

Feburary 2013
You may have accidentally removed the indefinite block notice from your talk page. Please be aware that per WP:UP you are not allowed to remove active blocks as it makes it difficult for other users/administrators to figure out why you have been blocked. Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Havengore for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)