User:Francis E Williams/archive

Case of users with multiple identities

January 2011 - (History of name change to I.P. address)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Do not use the edit summary as a soapbox, as you did when you wrote "it's a pointless endeavour even by the standards of Wikipedia compulsive editors" Guy Macon 16:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Guy Macon 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrably not true. Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it. Look at your last 1000 edits and see how many of them are vandalism reversions, or, at best, cleaning up of text that wouldn't get a passing grade in an elementary school assignment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord, have I made a personal attack? What WAS I thinking? I hereby sincerely and deeply apologize to everyone I've ever met for any injury to their frail self-esteem I may have thoughtlessly caused them. And to think, I could actually be blocked from the singular privelege of taking "poo" out of 20 articles every day. Oh, the drama! --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Note: I am unsubscribing from your user pages and thus will not see any further abuse posted here. Do NOT continue your personal attacks elsewhere. Guy Macon 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please indicate where the personal attacks are? To do a personal attack, I'd have to think I was being attacked by a person. I find it's better to think of Wikipedia editing as fixing line noise; less personality involved. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - (How Francis E Williams got involved)

I`d just like to say thank you for the enlightenment you have provided to me with regard to the structure of Wikipedia, and your persistent attempts to improve the standard of contributions to this publication. To stimulate the "thinking process" in individuals, and to clarify much confusion caused by "good faith" but "misinformed" contributors is a difficult "skill" to master. You appear to have an encyclopeadic knowledge in many subjects. It took me a long time to understand how you motivate "lateral thinking" in people with regard to their contributions. I think your method of working is appreciated by others who have knowledge at similar levels to you own. We need more people like you to move this project to a higher level. Its not all about "filling up the page", less is "more" sometimes. Keep up the good work. I don`t believe in giving "barn stars" to adult contributors, but if a real "award" were available here, I would nominate you. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After hanging around here for several years, I don't think this project can work the way it at first appears to work. We don't have 100,000 editors contributing to any particular article, we have 1 ...let's call it "enthusiast" ...who starts an article, perhaps 3 or 4 more knowledgeable people contribute significant content, then we have a dozen hyphen-fixers and format-adjusters, then the rabble has at it with random spelling changes, things they saw on TV last night, and overt vandalism. There is so little expertise on any particular subject here, and there's no reason for real experts to spend their time fixing an article here when Randy from Boise is waiting in the wings to inject sword-wielding skeletons. I am perhaps excessively cynical, but every cynic is really a frustrated idealist; when you strip away the back-patting that dominates when Wikipedians talk about themselves, it really is a very cool notion.

To edit is also to cut; maybe educating people by "Turn in 1000 words on the coffee industry in Brazil" has made word counts too important in some minds. Better 500 words that are clear and content-ful than 1000 words with padding.

My favorite Wikipedia articles are those in which I learn something. It's frustrating to read a bunch of padding and realize there's no pony in all that manure. I can usually tell pony from pony byproduct when I'm in an electrical article, but, to take an example, I'm not certain of where to stop when looking at education, or maths articles. If I find myself at one of those, I stick to hyphen-fixing and reverting overt vandalism; no great value to the project, just maintenance.

Anyway, happy editing and as always Wikipedia:Be Bold. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, too much "blood letting" in an article leads to the "death" of it, because no serious contributor will re-edit more than once. (Recent articles included). My advice is to do what I do .... keep persisting to improve things, it will make sense to the "admins" in the end. Perhaps the founder of Wikipedia would like to be informed of what is really happening to his "child". A consesus needs to ne reached where the community "steps back" and sees the "big picture", not the "rabbit warren" of pages that make up the "rules". Rules are neccessary when editing, but they are open to "personal interpretation" and bias. Iam not in favor of "one word at a time editing" either, It gets real messy after two edits on the same sentence. "Confidence is high" as you guys say. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

onknown users? surely not. (Indentitfied user had changed I.D. to I.P.

Hello again, try this little beauty [1] for your unknown users. Just a tiny tool to keep you up to speed with all those "John Does" on here. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I note that as one guy goes, another two arrive. Wikipedia is like that, people move on, even serious editors. Francis E Williams (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there any serious editors? Like featured articles, they are an inconsequential trace impurity in this MMRPG.Mostly what I see is vandals, spammers, drive-by taggings, bots, axe grinders, obsessives, and various nationalists. If I see an article on my watch list change by 1000 bytes, chances are high that it's vandalism, or at best some tweaking, not content addition. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I do believe that some contributors do arrive here intent on making serious contributions, informed people, who become despondant with the bewildering posturing, bureaucracy and petty back-biting that ensues when first attempts to edit prove fruitless. This very public place could be improved if somehow every experiemced contributor could "adopt" and "vet" a new user, assess their capabilities and offer guidance "before" they unleash themselves on the world. Perhaps we could have a "practice first enclopedia" section to allow usere to "trash" before they are let loose on the real thing. All too often first experience here is a "bite" from some one, followed by no good example to follow.

All too often lack of communication skills result in conflict. Waving a big stick in good for keeping small animals under control. You should be allowed to "lead" contributors (and users) in the way that works best. If it involves a bit of "straight talking" to wake them up then use it. This world is the way it is because nobody wants to be "stood up and counted", always the easy path. Let "little Johnny" have his way, it won`t do any harm will it? If you ask that question as a parent, then you had no discipline as a child. Watch a lioness with her cubs, they learn P.D.Q. not to go over the line. End of rant. (That modern R.P.G. had me worried for a bit too.)Francis E Williams (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The bureacracy usually doesn't trouble me, though I'm always disappointed when an article I nominate for deletion stays only because there's been insufficent discussion to gauge "consensus" - I've never understood how many not-votes it takes to establish this. Once you accept that this is inherently a deeply pointless activity that will not earn you the Kingdom of Heaven, it goes much better; it beats playing Free Cell. It's a formal system with rules and behavior, and sometimes you can prod the system into a pleasant effect; then the tide rolls in and it goes back to a blank slate again.

There's a great book on the contributors to the Oxford English Dictionary . I wonder if we have any contributors to match William Chester Minor ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I've brought your behavior at Family Radio Service and General Mobile Radio Service to AN3. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. See you there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to AGF even about IP editors

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Medgar Evers. Edits such as this tend to be experiments by newcomers to Wikipedia. The appropriate response is to welcome them to Wikipedia, not to accuse them of vandalism in the reverting edit summary. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Most IP edits that I run across are vandalism. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited in - (edit style word for word)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Guy Macon 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

edit end - (compared)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions are only held till facts come in. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In my last 500 edits, I tagged 79 of them as "rv v" or as "rv spam" and 78 of those were to IP addresses. True, I have not counted how many edits by all editors were not vandalism or spam in that period. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proving nothing, since your last 500 edits is not even close to a statistically valid sampling. Policy is that you AGF, not that you AGF with registered editors only. If you don't like that policy, I suggest you take it to the Village Pump. This conversation is over. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is over. Wow...flashing back to elementary school. Does that really work? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

use of edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Please use the article talk page to comment on the contents of an article, so that other editors might see and respond to your comments more readily. Edit summaries are best used to simply describe the changes made in an edit. As an aside, sarcasm does not tend to translate well over the Internet, especially on Wikipedia. To the end of productively communicating and collaborating with other editors, it oftentimes behooves one to make one's point simply and succinctly. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. In my house I suppose I could have a kilowatt or so of lights. But my furnace is rated something like 90,000 btu/hour, or say 26 kW. And even in the wintertime I don't leave all the lights on all the time. This makes a difference of what, 2 or 3% to my gas consumption? This is not dramatic, it's hard even to measure. I thought as a devotee of precision yourself, that you would appreciate that "dramatic" differences usually mean something that shows up in the second digit of the monthly bill, not lost in the noise. So the comment "How many lights in this house anyway" is apposite; most homes don't get s significant part of their heating from the lighting system, at least in this part of the world. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. That's not an argument I'm having with you. I'm just pointing out that your use of edit summaries tends to be incorrect, and suggesting that you rectify that. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:General Mobile Radio Service - (How user Jeh got involved)

You might want to check this edit. If you didn't intend to stomp User:Jeh's comment, you probably want to revert yourself. If you did intend to stomp User:Jeh's comment, you probably want to pretend that you didn't, because that's a pretty substantial policy vio. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered by all the personal attention, but it's really unnecessary to devote your full time to following me around. I don't know why i collect entourages of groupies wherever i go...don't hate me because i'm beautiful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually hadn't noticed it! But then I was up until 10 last night. 10 am this morning, that is. Jeh (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

One for your /Griping list - (user Jeh second comments)

File:Induction motor (squirrel cage) workings.JPG

The Bedlam Cage motor

Joy over at Commons FfD with this: File:Induction motor (squirrel cage) workings.JPG

Same old KVDP and the endless stream-of-consciousness explanations for how devices work, or how they could work more betterer if only they had a hydrogen-fuelled Sterling engine in there too. Don't miss the text explanation on the image page, or the list o'doom on KVDP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. These ...things...would not help explain how motors work to the proverbial bright 12-year-old reader. I thought I understood how induction motors worked till I saw these drawings...they've actually subtracted from my knowledge. Of course, the only thing better than a hydrogen-fuelled "Sterling" engine is broadcast power. WP:CIR discusses this problem. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I like WP:CIR. Jeh (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User 24.177.120.74 contributions

We're all here to make this bestest encyclopedia ever, yes we are

It occurs to me that speculating on an editor's motives requires me to suspend the assumption of good faith. I wonder if someone editing in the MP3 article who quarreled with every assertion on MP3s being popular, accurate, easy to use, etc.; was not sitting in a warehouse full of 8-track tapes he's trying to move? Rational people have discernable objectives; the assumption of rationality is less strict than the assumption of good faith. Assuming that every editor is a maniac bent on destroying the Wikipedia is probably not necessary...yet. Nothing like a little false drama to brighten one's Wikipedia day. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean I have to assume anyone is correct, or even that they have a reasonably defensible position. I rather imagine that the Heaven's Gate people firmly believed they were doing the right thing too. Jeh (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had not thought of that. One may in all sincerity and good faith hold a belief which is totally nuts. The proposition that one can make a(n authoritative) encyclopedia from the contriubtions of a million annonymous volunteers may also be held in good faith, but practically speaking is hard to defend. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, if that's truly your belief, you might consider finding a more defensible project to contribute to. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A project doesn't have to be considered an authoritative encyclopedia to be worth contributing to. Jeh (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You phrased that like a truism, but it's really just opinion. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's in your opinion. Twice. Jeh (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's factual. Were you correct, there would be nothing other than opinion left. That's solipsism, and I reject it. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither part of your statement is factual. Whether or not I phrased "that" as a truism is something of which you cannot possibly have certain knowledge (i.e. you could be wrong), unless you were reading my mind when I wrote it. You reacted to it in the belief that I phrased it as a truism, but that's your reaction based on your interpretation. (I really don't think it should be necessary to add "in my opinion" to everything in order to preclude counters of "that's just your opinion," so I don't.) Conversely, something that is demonstrably true is not a matter of opinion, and there are a very large number of projects that are not considered authoritative encyclopedias, to which large numbers of people neverthless find it worthwhile to contribute time, resources, and even money. (Consider Yahoo Answers.) So while it may not be a truism in your opinion, it would seem to be a valid observation; its truth is most certainly is demonstrable by example. Especially since, the way it's phrased, I'd need only one. Therefore your claim that my statement was opinion is specious. Now, as the judges say on TV... is this going somewhere? Jeh (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact: the statement "A project doesn't have to be considered an authoritative encyclopedia to be worth contributing to." is an opinion, as that which is "worth contributing to" is a subjective grouper. Opinion: you're using excessive verbiage to obfuscate the fact that you lack a basic understanding of the distinction between facts and opinion. Answer: unless you're about to have an epiphany about the distinction between objective and subjective assertions, probably not. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Windows Task Manager, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I did think the ones marked as minor qualified as such, and I still do. Your opinion to the contrary is noted. Jeh (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You get to have your own opinions, but you don't get your own facts. "Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content." Please do not revert good-faith contributions or sourced assertions with an edit flagged 'minor'. You may be banned for continuing in this manner. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had been on Wikipedia more than a few weeks you would realize that the "minor" tag isn't solely used that way. But to quote another part of that page, I believed it "required no review and could never be the object of a dispute." Well, not a dispute from competent editors, anyway. I still do. Considering that I then reverted my own edit, and then reverted the subject editors' entire set of changes as one massive copyvio, I seriously doubt I'm at risk of being banned. Drop this point, please - it's ancient history. Jeh (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop it if you WP:AGF. Incivility can also get you banned. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the lack of assumption of good faith? Where is the incivility? WP:CIVIL does not require me to agree with you or to thank you for telling me something I disagree with. Nor can I be banned (the word is blocked, by the way) for failing to meet your specifications for a response here. Indeed, WP:CIVIL requires you to stop annoying me on my talk page if I ask. And I have now asked, twice. You made your point - there is nothing more you can say about that besides quoting WP:MINOR yet again. And your continued threats are most decidedly uncivil. Please move on. Jeh (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Contributions from user

(Version 1) [2]

Contributions from 24.177.120.74

(Version 2) [3]

Contributions from 24.177.120.138

(version 3) [4] user contribs

[5] at user Jeh

[6] at Airband talk

history between users

Not encylopediac

Read WP:NOT and tell me why this article should be here - it's not very encyclopediac, is it? --Wtshymanski 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary...

[[WP:NOT] states:

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content..."

This list is useful to us engineers and very much Wikipediac. Rather than being deleted, this topic should be expanded with information about the different families (74LS, 74HC, 74HCT...) -- possibly in a related entry with links both ways.

If there is a specific part of WP:NOT that you believe applies, please specify it.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

History - Francis E Williams - 24.177.120.24

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Family Radio Service. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

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. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. 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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —teb728 t c 10:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Wtshymanski

Thank you for the reply here [7], but you have intrigued me now, who or what is "NAT"? there is no entry on this encyclopedia when I searched for it.Francis E Williams (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I found this CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs), now it makes more sense. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. I think you meant Network address translation didn`t you? It doesn't mean you can;t be located at this place [8] though does it? Francis E Williams (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

NAT is a common acronym for Network Address Translation. It does not mean that I can't be located in that place, but it also does not mean that I must be. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Preview, pls.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to E 14 (Norway), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your well intentioned comments. Perhaps the history would have revealed to you that the article was already laid out correctly until another user "re-arranged" it with an automaic tool. I am assisting a norweigian contributor whose english is not as good as he would like ti to be, would you like to help him Guy?. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the talk page where it was originally placed. Edits like this could have been avoided had you used preview first. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

End of conversation.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits history 24.177.120.24

• (cur | prev) 10:08, 20 February 2011 TEB728 (talk | contribs) (5,925 bytes) (→MfD nomination of User:24.177.120.74: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:00, 19 February 2011 24.I77.120.74 (talk | contribs) (5,139 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:00, 18 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,091 bytes) (thank you kindly) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:49, 18 February 2011 CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) (1,975 bytes) (→page creation help) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:46, 18 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,821 bytes) (okay, i get it) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:42, 18 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (3,546 bytes) (→page creation help: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:35, 17 February 2011 24.l77.120.74 (talk | contribs) (2,816 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:24, 10 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,091 bytes) (add comment) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:22, 10 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (884 bytes) (rm old convos - over and out!) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:16, 10 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (3,086 bytes) (Undid revision 412889141 by Francis E Williams (talk) rv inappropriate comments added to my talk page) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:15, 9 February 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (4,812 bytes) (Undid revision 412872272 by 24.177.120.74 (talk) -innapropriate comments added to my talk page) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:56, 9 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (3,086 bytes) (Undid revision 412738958 by Francis E Williams (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:02, 8 February 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (4,678 bytes) (→Preview, pls.: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:04, 8 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (3,086 bytes) (Undid revision 412705689 by Francis E Williams (talk pls respond on your own talk page.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 11:28, 8 February 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (4,190 bytes) (→Preview, pls: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 07:57, 4 February 2011 Banaticus (talk | contribs) (3,086 bytes) (→sandbox: Ok. It's done. Might I suggest that you create a username?) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:59, 4 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (2,530 bytes) (→sandbox: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:07, 2 February 2011 Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (2,308 bytes) (→Thank you!: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:43, 1 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (2,037 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:39, 1 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,902 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:38, 1 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,722 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:10, 1 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,151 bytes) (noted) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:00, 1 February 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (2,629 bytes) (→User talk:Wtshymanski) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:42, 31 January 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (2,349 bytes) (→User talk:Wtshymanski) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:36, 31 January 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) m (2,219 bytes) (→User talk:Wtshymanski: appending the adendum) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:39, 31 January 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (2,035 bytes) (→User talk:Wtshymanski: addendum) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:36, 31 January 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (1,838 bytes) (→User talk:Wtshymanski: new section) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:00, 31 January 2011 TEB728 (talk | contribs) (1,476 bytes) (edit war warning) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:32, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (empty) (thank you.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:28, 31 January 2011 Goodvac (talk | contribs) (1,890 bytes) (comment) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:27, 31 January 2011 Obsidian Soul (talk | contribs) (1,767 bytes) (answered on irc) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:24, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,760 bytes) (undo) (Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace)
• (cur | prev) 09:23, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (1,540 bytes) (undo) (Tag: Possible self promotion in userspace)
• (cur | prev) 09:21, 31 January 2011 Obsidian Soul (talk | contribs) (1,265 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:18, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (934 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 09:11, 31 January 2011 Obsidian Soul (talk | contribs) (695 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:50, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (172 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 08:49, 31 January 2011 24.177.120.74 (talk) (53 bytes) (←Created page with 'helpme|Can someone please create my user page? ~~')

Misguided editor has attempted to prevent free speech ..Silly man, tried to block IT professional

June 2015

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "This account was a new 2011 account created AFTER being persistently harrased and persecuted by an I.P. contributor after my getting caught in the crossfire between the I.P. and another editor. It was this experience that taught me how to use my I.T. skills to (hopefully) teach the I.P. a lesson, as he knew all the channels to use on Wikipedia , wheras I didn't. the rest of the debacle is recorded on my old account contributions. Maybe it was not the best way to resolve the issue, but when the red mist is down people do the strangest things. I was really frustrated with Wikipedia administration (still am ) about the way disputes are handled. I don't neccearily want to contribute again , just want to set the record straight as it appeared that my admitting to have previously had an account has been misunderstood, and that is my fault, for not differenciating between WAS and IS. Only ONE account at a time was ever used. I did not want to be pursued again so I did not appeal the block on my old account, just created a new one. I cannot cope with the stress of contributing here at the moment with my current brain injury. It just frustrates me that I used to have vision, I could also type with more than one finger. I am unable to apologise to the editors at Dorchester article as my post would be removed instantly. Just pass the message on to them not to take it too personally. Mmaybe this post is also another waste of time yet again. 86.131.173.198 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Your previous account was blocked for repeated trolling and block evasion. This account is simply another example of the latter. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Non-admin comment. This user should not be unblocked. They have totally ignored Wikipedia conventions with regard to sources and references and also inserting totally false information, ie: regarding Hardy Monument on the Dorchester, Dorset article. In spite of requests to stop commenting on my Talk page, they have continued to do so under various IP's. Admin's should note that this user is editing, in the past few days, under the following names/IP's:- Francis E Williams, Billy from Bath, IP:86.165.194.175, IP:88.108.240.74 and today from IP:86.131.173.198. A clear case of sockpuppeting. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot and have not logged in as Francis E Williams nor as Billy from Bath it is not possible as the login logs will show. Every time my router is switched on it issues me with a dynamic host control protol ( DHCP ) controlled account from B.T.'s servers. So the above statement is neither factual or correct. What ever number is seen following this comment is not controlled by me. I would suugest that the user making this comment should accept the fact that (a) a genuine error was made with regard the wrong Thomas Hardy. (The sailor not the novelist. (b) The edit regarding the location of the skate park is correct as regard it is in fact opposite Brewery Square adjacent to the car parks used by the covered markets in Dorchester. The fact that I did not know the name of the road is why the contribution was reverted. No sources were required for either contribution as they were addition to existing unsourced contributions. As the user David removed my original comment from his talk page and then failed to notify me that he had in fact made a comment to me. I replied to his comment, as I am rightly allowed to do in a democracy. NOWHERE in this following comment from user David does it state "this is my final comment to you.".

I QUOTE "The truth of this matter is that factual, spelling and grammar errors were being made to the Dorchester, Dorset article, without any references or sources: that is why they were removed. I would also remind this "editor" that it is entirely proper for a editor to remove content from their Talk page and it is edit warring to reinstate them. Thank you Charles for your entirely correct comments. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC) " unquote

The historical evidence of the talkpage history will show :- Comments 1 and 2 are User Billy, comment 3 is a comment from user Charles, comment 4 is Billy response to Charles. Comment 5 is the one quoted above from user David. Comment 6 is my response to user David. Comment 7 from user David icludes the words "Please stop".

I then posted the following, addressed to no one in particular. As it can be seen User David made yet another "final comment" to user Billy.

"This contributor has survived seven decades on this planet and is currently recovering from a Cerebral hemorrhage resuling in a half body stroke and eye defects caused by type 2 diabetes and as a result has decided to cease contributing to this project. Billy from Bath (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC) This contributor was also known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francis_E_Williams. Billy from Bath (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)"

"Good, you have been blocked anyway for being a sockpuppet account. David J Johnson (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)"

User Billy was blocked from replying with his own account and then replied with an un-logged I.P. address. So the above statement by a senoir editor with admin rights is totallly fabricated to attempt to mislead the reader and to colour the facts. 86.131.4.106 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page access removed. Use WP:UTRS if you wish a review of your block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not create the "problem" in the first place, an I.P. editor did. I just reacted to it. Yet another law for one and not for another. This is exactly why I never appealed the last block. This is just a repeat of what happened before 4 years ago , it's a closed shop , don't rock the boat and you're alright jack ! . Anybody can make any statement they like and everybody else closes ranks. Your system stinks! 81.153.189.3 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

To confirm my recent statemenrs about dealing with confused editors who have limited understanding of hoe Wikipedia edit software functions. Here is a second encounter with yet another a senior editor (who has only added 2 comtributions to the content on this Encyclopedia.) The rest of the "edits" are purely talk pages and sometimes misguided removals of contributions. Here are the "edit comments" and the mistakes made that I was also supposed to be guilty of , this is what prompted the response that the second "block" is all supposed to be about. A stifling of free speech to defend ones actions here is now been attempted to be put in place. Note the "please stop" comments to various users to end conversations while HIS point is made. Indicating that he alone must control the way the conversation continues. The confusion in the mind between what was ACTUALLY said and what was THOUGHT to be said by this user. Contributors are supposed to consider this normal and proffessional behaviour editorial here. The editor needs and has had help in the past as this log shows.

20:28, 9 June 2015 Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) protected User talk:David J Johnson‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC))‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)) (User request via email) (hist) 22:21, 28 March 2013 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) protected User talk:David J Johnson‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)) (Persistent sock puppetry) (hist) 22:21, 28 March 2013 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:David J Johnson: edit summary hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material) 22:21, 28 March 2013 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 2 revisions on page User talk:David J Johnson: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (RD3: Purely disruptive material)

You couldn't make this up !! I am the ONE who has suffered the stroke , but luckily only half my body and my sight are affeted by it, not my interlect.. read on bt clicing the "Edit " button and looking at the edit screen below this text , it will be clearly displayed as it apperaed on the original page.

(cur | prev) 20:28, 9 June 2015‎ Dennis Brown (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (159,622 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected User talk:David J Johnson: User request via email ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)))) (cur | prev) 19:31, 9 June 2015‎ 81.153.189.3 (talk)‎ . . (159,622 bytes) (+508)‎ . . (→‎Trolling) (cur | prev) 17:34, 9 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (159,114 bytes) (+241)‎ . . (→‎Trolling: Comment.) (cur | prev) 14:22, 9 June 2015‎ 86.131.172.186 (talk)‎ . . (158,873 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎ANI) (cur | prev) 14:21, 9 June 2015‎ 86.131.172.186 (talk)‎ . . (158,880 bytes) (+379)‎ . . (→‎Trolling: new section) (cur | prev) 23:07, 8 June 2015‎ NeilN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,501 bytes) (-1,134)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 665913512 by Acroterion (talk): Rv disrupt. (TW)) (cur | prev) 22:59, 8 June 2015‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (159,635 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (Signing comment by 86.138.29.65 - "→‎It is time to learn: new section") (cur | prev) 22:58, 8 June 2015‎ 86.138.29.65 (talk)‎ . . (159,361 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎It is time to learn: new section) (cur | prev) 22:57, 8 June 2015‎ 81.158.100.6 (talk)‎ . . (159,300 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎It is time to learn: new section) (cur | prev) 22:57, 8 June 2015‎ 81.158.100.6 (talk)‎ . . (159,239 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎It is time to learn: new section) (cur | prev) 22:57, 8 June 2015‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (159,178 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (Signing comment by 81.153.54.183 - "→‎It is time to learn: new section") (cur | prev) 22:56, 8 June 2015‎ 81.153.54.183 (talk)‎ . . (158,901 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎It is time to learn: new section) (cur | prev) 22:56, 8 June 2015‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (158,840 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (Signing comment by 81.153.54.183 - "→‎It is time to learn: new section") (cur | prev) 22:54, 8 June 2015‎ 81.153.54.183 (talk)‎ . . (158,563 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎It is time to learn: new section) (cur | prev) 14:19, 8 June 2015‎ 86.131.173.198 (talk)‎ . . (158,502 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: update) (cur | prev) 17:05, 7 June 2015‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,501 bytes) (-567)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 665883473 by David J Johnson (talk): Rv better. (TW)) (cur | prev) 17:03, 7 June 2015‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (159,068 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 86.165.194.175 (talk) to last version by SineBot) (cur | prev) 17:03, 7 June 2015‎ 86.165.194.175 (talk)‎ . . (159,069 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 17:02, 7 June 2015‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (159,068 bytes) (+256)‎ . . (Signing comment by 86.165.194.175 - "→‎Dorchester: farewell , parting is such sweet sorrow.") (cur | prev) 17:01, 7 June 2015‎ 86.165.194.175 (talk)‎ . . (158,812 bytes) (+311)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: farewell , parting is such sweet sorrow.) (cur | prev) 12:38, 7 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,501 bytes) (+61)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: Final comment to "editor" who would not confirm to Wikipedia conventions.) (cur | prev) 12:23, 7 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,440 bytes) (+122)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 11:23, 7 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,318 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 11:08, 7 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,125 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 10:54, 7 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (158,079 bytes) (+318)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: attitude) (cur | prev) 00:11, 7 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,761 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 23:08, 6 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,760 bytes) (+496)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: Last contribution to "editor" specialising in errors.) (cur | prev) 19:56, 6 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (157,264 bytes) (+389)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: response) (cur | prev) 15:48, 6 June 2015‎ BattyBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,875 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Zodiac Murders: changed article categories to category links per WP:USERNOCAT using AWB (11040)) (cur | prev) 12:14, 6 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,874 bytes) (+550)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: Final comment.) (cur | prev) 10:56, 6 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (156,324 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: sp duplicate m) (cur | prev) 09:45, 6 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,325 bytes) (+185)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: response) (cur | prev) 09:22, 6 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,140 bytes) (+259)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester) (cur | prev) 08:59, 6 June 2015‎ Charlesdrakew (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,881 bytes) (+215)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: cmt) (cur | prev) 08:49, 6 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,666 bytes) (+298)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: reinstate comment removed - it is not considered good "Wikiquette" to remove editors comments) (cur | prev) 17:03, 5 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,368 bytes) (+214)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: new section) (cur | prev) 13:03, 5 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,154 bytes) (-685)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: Delete nonsense remarks that should be on User's Talk page. Also placed without new section header on history, please check before contributing.) (cur | prev) 12:45, 5 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,839 bytes) (+370)‎ . . (→‎Dorchester: Edit warning to Billy from Bath.) (cur | prev) 12:40, 5 June 2015‎ Billy from Bath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,469 bytes) (+315)‎ . . (→‎Zodiac Murders) (cur | prev) 16:00, 4 June 2015‎ David J Johnson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (155,154 bytes) (+382)‎ . . (→‎Zodiac Murders: Reply.)

End of extract. "Editors and Admins" please note. You may remove items on my talk page and various other pages from view , but you CANNOT remove them from Wiki's archive. The system does not allow it. 86.131.173.24 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC) 86.165.13.96 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC) extract transferred 86.165.13.96 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

18 February 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• 24.l77.120.74 (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

suspected sockmaster has edits minutes prior to and subsequent to edits by suspected sock with inapprops username, suspected sockmaster edited user page for suspected sock with inapprops username, suspected sockmaster and suspected sock both edited my talk page in relatively close temporal proximity 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong—this edit 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Template:Clerknote Sorry, I don't follow. What makes you think Francis E Williams is the user of this sock account? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Template:Endorse - Heh, alright. I'll endorse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Declined - 24.l77.120.74 (talk · contribs) was blocked to allow account creation, as such creating a new account is not in violation of WP:SOCK. Tiptoety ^talk 01:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Sock puppetry Investigation

Creation log

• 16:49, 11 February 2011 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) created new account User:24.l77.120.74 (talk | contribs)
• 13:15, 10 August 2009 Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) new user account ‎

Deletion log

1. (diff | hist) . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams‎; 01:41 . . (+331) . . Tiptoety (talk | contribs) (Decline CU)
2. (Deletion log); 01:39 . . Tiptoety (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams": removed content for 1 revision (Other defamation/personal information issues)

18:41, 20 February 2011 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams": restored content for 1 revision ‎ (RD6: Non-contentious housekeeping, RevDel corrections, notes, conversion)

Block log

1. (Block log); 01:37 . . Tiptoety (talk | contribs) unblocked "Francis E Williams (talk | contribs)" (Mistake)
2. (Block log); 01:35 . . Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams)

Process

1. 01:37, 20 February 2011 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) unblocked "Francis E Williams (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Mistake)
2. 01:36, 20 February 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs) blocked Anniewatashi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Spam / advertising-only account)
3. 01:36, 20 February 2011 Snowolf (talk | contribs) blocked AmericanPatriot1001 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)
4. 01:35, 20 February 2011 Tiptoety (talk | contribs) blocked Francis E Williams (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams)

sock policy

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Francis_E_Williams, User:Tiptoety declined a checkuser request that had already been endorsed, with a reason that doesn't seem to make sense. What's more, I can't ask him/her/it about it, as zir talk page is semi-protected. Could someone either explain the logic there to me, or request a more substantial explanation on zir talk page, please? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:24.177.120.74

User:24.177.120.74, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.177.120.74 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:24.177.120.74 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —teb728 t c 10:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:24.177.120.74

This anon’s user page is being used disruptively to camouflage the relationship between:

Template:Lu- the anon,

Template:Lu- with a lc ‘L’, and

Template:Lu- with a capital ‘i’

—teb728 t c 10:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Kalsi

Hello, thanks for the message. Re: Johnny Kalsi, BTW- I was horrified at my tone on his talk page! It just goes to show- we all have grumpy days! Give me about 8 hrs. or so (from whatever the time stamp is on this message), and I'll be happy to assist! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I glanced over Johnny Kalsi's article. How would you feel if, when I find little spots needing a little more attention, I can make notes so you'll always know? I'm happy to help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK!! :)) I'll go over Kalsi's page, and in both the edit summary after each time, and on your talk page, I'll explain what I did and why. Thus far, I did notice that Kalsi's article has his birthdate and place of birth missing. Usually biographies are more specific than only mentioning that he is from the Punjab area of India, although having that, at least beats having nothing!

Templates

I thought this template would help!! :)) It was given to me when I first came to edit the Wikipedia, and I still use it today! Cheers-- --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I still use this, especially the section on starting your first article! I consider each article I start or add to significantly as a "first article" every time. It's sort of like learning math, or a language; if we don't get the basic framework down, the whole article is off-balance! Last, I invite you to join us here:

You are already helping to do this! Join us! OK, more later, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First, introductions

Hi, I am really sorry I was shorter on time than usual- the end of the Holidays have slowed up my time a bit, but I can send more information and so forth tomorrow. I noticed your messages on your talk page and user page. You are obviously earnest in wanting the Wikipedia to thrive, which is great! A couple things though.. hopefully you'll take my comments with the kindness I mean. I think, looking in from the outside, that you might scare away people with good intentions when they read the messages. It's best to answer everybody whether you like what they say or not. But maybe instead of saying "IF" I respond, feel respect, etc., you could just change it by reminding them that you will always contact others with respect and would appreciate the same.. pointing out WP:CIV, and WP:AGF (both are in that Welcome template)! They are the pillars of Wikipedia!!

The other thing.. some of those little "Babel boxes" are helpful, (though I agree entirely on all the wasted time some people spend on them.. not to mention the posturing some editors do with their Barnstars! But it is a good idea to at least put a couple on your Userpage- what languages you know at what level, and, I assume, your inclusion of the Wikipedia Biography editors and Musicians work groups. (I have those on my page, you can copy them by editing where they are if you are willing). It is, though your choice-- just is nice for another editor to know in advance what part of Wikipedia you edit, or language, just because they may come to you as an English speaker, for example, needing your help. Well, that's my 2 cents; I'm not being critical, but they might help you.

Assuming Good Faith

That's awful the way others would be so critical of you!! That's why from the start, I'd just leave a note at your tslk psge up top reminding others of WP:CIV to remind people to be civil and helpful. I do promise that any changes and/or advice to you comes from the heart; I would never wish to say or do anything here that is mean-spirited!! I am sincere. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies and the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia

Yes, biographies are quite difficult, especially when the subjects are "BLP"s (Biographies of living persons). However, I urge you to look here at the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia WP:FIVEPILLARS. They are the very foundation of what guidelines we have. As I mentioned before, one of them is to assume good faith, and to be civil. However, another now comes to mind. Right or wrong, there is to be no original research. That places contacting the subjects of the biographies you are working on in a very thin gray line between what is acceptable and what is not. Please remember that now that the Wikipedia (in it's myriad of languages, etc.) is usually in the first five results when people search for information in Google, thus making it terribly tempting for the subjects of articles to seek free promotion or at least more visibility, and that isn't even taking into consideration workers like A&R people from the record labels or other businesses.. contacting ANY biography subject, their families, or whatever may not hold up to scrutiny. It is why our rules about keeping a neutral point of view in the articles NPOV so important. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive

If you don't want a lot of stuff on your talk page, the approved way of dealing with it is to archive it. You don't need to "wipe it clean", since no matter what you do on Wikipedia, once it has been written, it is there permanently for anyone who wishes to look -- whether editing/creating articles, or talking on talk pages. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tiff Merritt

To Francis E Williams, I appreciate your intention to be helpful. However, I must ask you not to comment on my conversations with other editors on my talk page. Often I have other, not obvious reasons for asking specific people about particular topics or other users. I'm sorry but I am used to handling many issues on a very low-key non confrontational basis if at all possible. Thanks for understanding.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A few things

OK, (keep in mind that I never chose the Johnny Kalsi article to work upon-- as Wikignome, I edit perhaps 12 articles back and forth (I suffer from ADD so I bounce around a lot. As I am sure you noticed, part of what I do isn't even ON the Wikipedia, and I find and place photos on several of the Wikipedias, which is how I came across the Kalsi article- finding the photo for it. I just went through and placed a bunch of spots little comments of what is needed to get the article in shape. BTW, if you can figure it out, the Dhol official website has some great music and the article could certainly use a music clip or two given that Kalsi's music does incorporate so many genres. You have the advantage-- I suck at learning computer stuff, but there's a "how to do" page in Wikipedia to do it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, If you look at the diversity of the subjects on my uaer page you`ll also note I have a "butterfly mind". I have an interest in music but I have avoided the Dhol Foundation website so as to keep an open mind about what I`m working on. I try not to link anything to it to maintain neutrality. I have no end of audio, (owned a recording studio in the late 60s), so I`ll try to get some copyright free links. I have sorted out what you annotated in the article - dates - refs etc. If it helps to have any knowledge of the processes that are available on the Internet, please don`t hesitate to ask, I`ll answer what I can. I have a highly technical background. I also research for other users and sites of common interest. (Historical etc).Francis E Williams (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me!

OH, before I forget, can we just keep our conversations here on your talk page? It's easier! OK? I'm not bad as a copyeditor, and have now had a lot of experience with certain parts of the Wikipedia, but never really learned much on the computers. I was all over the map too, when I began editing here, and then found a niche where I'm comfortable for the most part. Some people gravitate towards controversial articles like Tvoz does, others pick discographies, or making portals, or album articles and song articles. I picked musicians' biographies and obtaining photos, that kind of thing. I was just thinking if you have a history using computers you could easily make the little music clips that are so helpful to demonstrate how some musicians sound! Another editor was making them for "my" articles, and said it was really simple, just a few minutes time to make and place; but he's temporarily not in Wikipedia- that's why I thought I'd mention it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I use Cool Edit Pro software as well as a multitude of other audio programs, so yes, I can slice up, convert whatever is suitable very easily.Francis E Williams (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

To help your day go along in a positive direction. Johnny Kalsi is a "C" grade article now thanks to your assistance.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

City of Bath Technical School

Thank you for drawing those facts to my attention, I have had a further read of the article, and re-assessed it as "B/Low". The article is quite long with informative and well referenced content (I am aware that previously I stated that the article could do with referencing, but this as a mistake, sorry!), the only major issue that I have found is that the History section reads like a list, and would be better presented as prose. In the review I also mentioned that the article would be a good candidate for a peer review, as it seems to be mostly complete, which then may enable it to attain "Good Article" status. If you would like the article re-assessed by a different assessor, please list the article in Wikipedia:WPSCH/A#Assessment_requests. Sorry for my incorrect assessment first time around! TheAuthor22 (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you can move it if you like, but i'd prefer if my comments weren't duplicated, so if you could mix in my original assessment somehow I think that would be better. TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to E 14 (Norway), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your well intentioned comments. Perhaps the history would have revealed to you that the article was already laid out correctly until another user "re-arranged" it with an automaic tool. I am assisting a norweigian contributor whose english is not as good as he would like ti to be, would you like to help him Guy?. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the talk page where it was originally placed. Edits like this could have been avoided had you used preview first. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

End of conversation.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI - it means "Administrators Noticeboard - Incidents"

Abridged chronology

Do me a favour Rod and keep an eye on Transport in Somerset. Francis Williams seems to have spat out his dummy and therefore I'm backing off for a while. I don't want to get dragged down to his level. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Transport in Somerset - there do seem to be a lot of edits today. You are probably best to walk away for a while & we can all have another look at it another day.— Rod ^talk 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have a reply to your message in Archive 3.Francis E Williams (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. I've just gone to WP:ANI because this response is out of order. Direct threats against me for doing what? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the notice when editing the page, you are meant to inform editors that you have raised an issue at ANI about their editing. I've informed FEW of the discussion you raised. Mjroots (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up, next time I will do just that. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"You're a sad, sad person and I pity you" is an unacceptable personal attack. I'd suggest redacting that comment ASAP. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

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. Mjroots (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring to other editors as "editors" in edit summaries, as you did here, is considered quite rude. I would suggest not doing this going forward. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask to consider if you have given similar advice to the other parties involved. I have tried to use the "softly softly approach" with a small number of very arrogogant people, it has not been succesful. I am now returning the compliment to them. Editing can be considered skillful, the act of continually removing suitably sourced "contributions" and content from multiple contributors in articles by certain "editors", (respected by a minority, or otherwise), is counter productive to those many individuals who have taken the trouble to "contribute". The issue is now perceived to be a personal one between two individuals. To be followed around by the same pair of people, and to have researched and verified information removed (on a whim), is not acceptable either. One can appear to be quite impartial but very patronising, the other should be more cautious about creating contraversial, and confrontational situations. He has now polarised certian individuals like yourself, who should research the problem before making comment.

It may take you considerable time to verify this fact using the history of contributions made by the parties concerned in the recent fiasco. If someone is rude to me in the real world, then they receive the same treatment. This is cyberspace where some people hide behind "nicknames" and "badges of authority". It was my intention to make it clear that this behaviour is no longer considered acceptable. Study the history of Transport in Somerset and you will see the "edit war" that devoloped between two contributors, failing to understand both content and article structure. Intent on re-inventing the wheel to suit ther own ends. This was attempted by me to be reverted to the original and the situation clarified, which then initiated a process by one of the "editors" to deliberatley disrupt this process by removing and randomly placing content into un-rrelated sections. I am going to tag the article as "Unclear" to help avoid the repetition of adding content to the wrong sections. (railway, modern) was placed in unrelated part of the article and has caused it to be repeated by other "contributors". I use "these things" to emphasise, rather than use the edit tool bar to bold text. I suggest this conversation be continued on the talk page of the article. That is a more appropraite place, others may then comment on this debacle.

P.S. check out my contributions, you will find I have been consistent on Wikipedia and always courteous until continually provoked over the last few months. It would appear that I am considered "fair game" as an older more experienced and suitably qualified member of the "University of life". Francis E Williams (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I just thought I'd add a note here. I don't believe anyone wishes you ill, nor wishes you to leave the project. Perhaps WP:NOTAFORUM would be helpful to you, as it explains other editor's expectations with regard to article talk page use. With best wishes to you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I previously warned you about personal attacks. Claiming that something is "the action of a desperate man trying to exonerate himself from responsibilty" is not considered an acceptable communication style here on Wikipedia, regardless of your personal norms. Please remember to comment on edits, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for the further advice regarding the NAI discussion that you left on my talk page section. I noted that the discussion was about "edits" and that it was heading in a positive direction. The discussion was initiated with my name included anyway. This complaint could have been made simply with a link to my talk page "edits". However, it appears to have been a singungular personal issue to which you should have not been involved. This may have also avoided another user with a personal "owner" issue from Radio becoming involved. The dispute about page "ownership" is a seperate issue in its own right, and does not involve "threats". I was not the user that "re-ordered" the radio talk page into a mess. My edits were obviously being tracked by a user at radio, I have not posted anything on this persons talk page, nor he on mine. There should be no possiblity of "auto addition" to either watched pages. (See my watchlist historical "log" for verification). I understand how the Wikipedia "audit trail" and "logs" work.

The person who "highlighted the edit issue" posted two personal (defamation of character) attacks, one on the NAI dscussion page, one on my talk page. In ignorance of these NAI proceedings, (about naming people refering to peoples character, not their edits), I responded to the personal (defamation of character) attack on NAI in the same manner. Perhaps too hastily, if these additions are also deemed inappropriate sections, should they be recorded on our respective talk pages instead? I agree to their transference, perhaps the other party may agree also. I think it will help to restore the tone of the discussion. I am sure the "edits" issue investigation by an administrator will take place in due course. Your recent post occured overnight for me, I have only just observed it. I note that you have made comment to the complainant about one event but not the other yet. I hope this matter may be resolved soon, I am sure all parties involved will take on board the ramifications of their actions in future, and will move toward resolving their "issues" with each other without involving other people. I realise you have a very difficult job, and that any personal bias cannot be a contributing factor. I am administrator at several school related websites, and have "chaired" medium sized organisations. I hadn`t interpreted your first message as a "warning", only advice. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

N.B. - (this comment has now been clarified with both strikethrough and added content (in brackets)). Francis E Williams (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism?

How do you come to the conclusion that contributions by myself and another reputable Wikipedia contributor Mhockey (talk · contribs) is "edit war vandalism". Deleting unsourced, or improperly sourced information, and making changes to comply with the manual of style - specifically the use of upper/lowercase in section headings - is neither edit warring nor vandalism. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Two people hell bent on contradicting each other and both of them NOT READING or UNDERSTANDING the sections in this article, counts not only as vandalism in my book but downright stupidity lack of any intelligence gathering as well. Research what is written FIRST before diving in and "editing". FIRST rule of Wikipedia, know your subject. This article was created by me as requested, and assessed by the Project team. It has not needed a "reviewer" to act as an "assessor" regarding its structure and content since its creation. Unless you now want to let "reviewer status" to go to your head that is. I used to see a somewhat "eccentric" but effiecient editor, now I see an intolerant person intent on wielding a big stick, and now being abused by people who are taking the rise out of you (mummywhale etc.). If you want to initate an "edit war" with me, I have plenty of time on my hands at the moment, I`ll try my best keep you busy for a very long time. I have no intention of embarrasing you on your talk page.This is the end of this conversation. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OWN and WP:TEA. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Simple Bob has said. Your comments are quite uncalled for. I would add that you need to read WP:AGF also.--Mhockey (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your comments are both debateable, and not original, I have received "good advice" from multiple users who assume lack of intellgence and research on my part. WP:PROTECT was being applied here (see latest article revision). I have taken these comments onboard, and see no other method to prevent this well intended "advice" from contaminating other users talk pages. If you are unble to deal with plain speaking, do not place yourselves in the public domain where your actions may be subject to scrutiny. My talk page and user page have been heavily modified recemtly to try and avoid this very scenario. I have an opinion, I am entitled to use free speech to express it. If you look at the facts, in due course you may arrive at a conclusion. If you think that polarising the issue is solving the underlying problems on this encylopedia, it will not change the perception that people have about this publication. My remaing years, and my remaining eye sight has been used to convey accurate knowledge to further generations, I don`t know why I am explainging myself you all and sundry. I have human rights as well . Please leave me to exploit them. If you both prefer to discuss the subject on your talk pages, I will be happy to post this on both. End of conversation please , and let me try to improve Wikipedia without due let or hinderance in future. Francis E Williams (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, other people have the same objectives of improving WP and conveying accurate knowledge on subjects that they have knowledge of - including topics that you have knowledge of. Please recognise that. Free speech is fine, but WP also requires WP:CIVILITY. Nobody is suggesting lack of intelligence or research on your part, but equally it is not helpful to accuse other editors of that.

Did you really mean to refer to WP:PROTECT? - I cannot see that the page has been protected. You may want to use Template:In use if you want other editors to wait until you have finished. --Mhockey (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant "protect" the content, not the page itself, I sould not have applied the brackets. That is some of the most helpful advice I have received recently, re. adding a pause facility. I do not claim "exclusive rights" to knowlegde despite what is sometimes mis-interpreted. I recognise lack of knowledge and flaws in characteristics that exist in some "contributors", having dealt with the public contually since 1963. How else can this issue be avoided in those who are "tolerably challenged"?. Pesistent removal of sourced and verified contribution by "Simple bob" are not helping. I have just replied to the "threats" I am alleged to have made to him. I will continue to repair his "edits". He will be observing this conversation. He needs to avoid following me around and removing content that has been applied by others using "good faith". Add a tag to identify a reference issue, but a "blitz" on multiple articles in a few minutes, is not appropriate. The use of "imotive" language like "not relaible", remove the "ref" (and the whole section to which it applies) is counter productive. If there is to be a "reliable source list" created, show to the contributor where it may be found. I have repaired very many of these "edits" myself. I could write for england about this practice, but I will refrain for now. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all suprised that you are unapologetic for your inflammatory outburst, either here or at the ANI discussion. That aside, please tell me where the Bridgwater, Burnham and Minehead ferries launch from and where they travel to? The references don't show anything to do with ferries at those sites - they are either broken or unreliable (and I use that as the opposite of reliable as in WP:RS). --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouild suggest another read of the article, the three newspaper links that mention ferries still work O.K. the links are not broken. The reference to the Bridgewater article is still working as well. I suggest you have something wrong with your computer browser software. It is now time for you to offer explanation to the ANI discussion. Why as a member of the project that created that article, (which included Rodw, who advised backing away from the issue), you failed to notice my correction to the "good faith", "buses" reword of the section that dealt with "road" solutions in the 21st century. You were quick enough to respond, as soon as I went near the page, (see history timies and editoral comments). You obviously ignored my editorial comment about the section not just being about buses. You then went on to edit war with the contributor and myself simultaneously.

Despite the fact you were aware I was trying to protect the integriry of the article, and inform the contributor most clearly that the "road" section was not just about "buses". Perhaps you could explain why you provked the incident still further by further edits with the contributor? The fact that you and I have history, makes your "allegation" of threats less credible. I can show to the ANI both that histrory, and the encouters you have provoked with contributors when you assumed your new role as "reviewer". I have no peronal "axe to grind" with you, but your removal of accurate and good sourced content at [[[Culverhay School]] alerted me to your unusual behaviour. I think we should now transfer this conversation to both your talk page and the transport in Somerset talk page so that others may contribute to my "alleged" vandalisation of the article.

Let the outcome of the ANI discussion decide from whom, (and if any), apology is required, and if any unprovoked "inflammatory" remark was made during that article encounter. I can understand the "psychology" being atttempted here to prove you are "whiter than white", it will reflect on your standing in this community, It will not affect mine. I do not seek attention or recogniotion for my contributions. You came to me remember, you made the complaint. You have been instrumental in suspending another user because he dared to conflict with your own personal opinion. He was not "banned" as you quoted when you removed the issue from your talk page. I am an intelligent person, who observes and reacts to his environment. I do not suffer fools gladly, and have been instrumental in protecting the rights of the individual with central government, local authorities, inland revenue, accountants, solicitors etc. This minor "hiccup" is nothing by comparison. People like me will not be intimidated by bullying tactics, neither will we go away, or stop making our point to those who simply refuse to remain biased. Oh, by the way why did you feel it was neccessary to remove your "one finger salute" from your user page? it was nor motivated by another discussuion with somebody else was it, or am I not allowed to comment on you contribution, but it appears that you can mine of course. Perhaps you will all now heed my request to cease this discussion on my talk page. it is not helping the ANI discussion one bit. Post your comments there please if you think they are relevant. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For contributors, this is the link to the ANI discussion where you may post any further contributions :- [9] - This incident discussion is now closed. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are a sad, sad person and I pity you. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but the feeling has to be reciprocated. Francis E Williams (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)