Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 19 June 2019

Archives

BobRoberts14 (old account)

Discretionary sanctions notices

This user has previously been notified of discretionary sanctions on the below topics. starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Post-1932 politics of the United States - 13 June 2019
• Living or recently deceased people - 15 June 2019
• Abortion - 16 June 2019

@Starship.paint: I mean I am not allowed to edit the first one for about two weeks, but the second and third I am still allowed to edit any time. Bill Williams (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not referring to your topic ban. I was referring to the notices (the large blue boxes) so hopefully someone won't put the same notice on your talk page. starship.paint (talk)

Ahh okay, thanks for telling me. Bill Williams (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, LilBillWilliams, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Art of ancient Egypt. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Aranya 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I do have a quick question @Aranya: When are you allowed to archive discussions on your talk page? Also, I started editing wikipedia about a week ago with the account BobRoberts14, but I wanted an account without a number so I made this. LilBillWilliams 23:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You can archive them you see fit, as it is usually done you have a couple of old discussions that are clogging a significant amount of space (see Help:Archiving a talk page). Unfortunately with your username situation, that is not a legitimate reason to edit under a new account, due to the active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against your old account (WP:SOCKLEGIT). I strongly recommend that you stop editing under this name, and try to see what you can do about changing your old account's name or at least how it appears in your signature. Cheers! Aranya 00:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aranya: Actually, I don't have any bans or blocks placed against my old account, only a sanction that says I can't edit post-1932 politics for the next two weeks. I will follow those sanctions and wait two weeks before editing those types of articles. Therefore there is no reason as to why I can't have this account. Also, why are you adding 11 references to a single sentence in the page Art of ancient Egypt? It looks very unprofessional, and is completely unnecessary. LilBillWilliams 00:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In my reply above I said you have "active bans, blocks, or sanctions", meaning having one of those satisfies that criteria. On the topic of your edits to Art of ancient Egypt, I reverted your removal of the content from the article because I felt the reasoning you provided in your edit summary did not justify its removal according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You need to explain why the references you removed do not conform to Misplaced Pages's guidelines such that they cannot be used in the article. Cheers and happy editing. Aranya 00:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aranya:There were 11 references in one sentence. What other reasons do I need? LilBillWilliams 00:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The point is, that is not necessarily a good reason to remove all of those references. I see what point you are making, but there are a lot of valid reasons to remove content from an article, especially if the content doesn't conform to Misplaced Pages's guidelines (there are a lot of good reasons at on this page). Aranya 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Art of ancient Egypt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Aranya 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah, my edits were completely fine and were correct. You added 11 references to a single sentence. That makes no sense at all, and looks very bad. I won't revert your edits without getting consensus first, but you don't know what you're doing. LilBillWilliams 00:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You said you would help me with future problems @BullRangifer:, and this is already one of them. I edited the aforementioned page, removing 11 references in a single sentence, and Aranya reverted my edits because they think they are correct. It's very apparent that they are not. LilBillWilliams 00:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Before I get involved here, a word of advice. Your signature isn't complete. You need a User page link as well as the talk page link. This is especially important on your own talk page where the talk page link is automatically deactivated and doesn't provide any information readable by some scripts. Your user page link would still provide that information. When that is fixed I'll take a look at this.

Also, don't tell editors, especially those with more experience, that they "don't know" what they are doing. Start by assuming you are the one missing something that more experienced editors, like Aranya, would know and can explain when you ask politely. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The script information I'm missing looks like this, taken from my own signature: "♂, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 62408 edits since: 2005-12-18, last edit on 2019-06-17". I've actually been here since 2003, when I edited using an IP. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll be more respectful in the future, sorry @Aranya:. Also, I'll fix my signature, thanks for telling me. LilBillWilliams 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little sleuthing and discovered that Aranya did not add that content, only restored it, which was the proper thing to do. It was this edit] which added lots of good sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Yeah I know that they did not add it to the page originally, but they added it back when I removed them. Can you just remove most of them? Having 11 citations in a single sentence looks very unprofessional, at most there should be three... LilBillWilliams 01:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a subject expert so I wouldn't know which refs are the best to keep. I also haven't checked to see if some of them are used in more than one place in the article.

It's a matter for the editors who are watching that article to decide, so start a thread and suggest that someone go through those edits and pare them down a bit. The editor who added them is probably the best person for that job. Ask them. 3-5 is probably enough, but I can't be sure. We're really careful with sources here, so we try to preserve good sources. Better too many than too few. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bill and Aranya - consider WP:CITEBUNDLE for that Art of ancient Egypt sentence with many cites. starship.paint (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Needs a line break just before each bullet asterisk, otherwise it runs all the cites together, making them much more difficult to visually separate. I.e., the software doesn't see the asterisk as a bullet point unless it's at the start of a line. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I now see that you coded it correctly and {{cot}} ignored your formatting. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I now see what you meant by "click Edit to see". I get there eventually. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I could have just linked to Trump's article, but didn't want to tempt fate since Bill's got that temporary topic ban. starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: and @Mandruss: I just don't see why the sentence needs 11 citations anyways. It's not a controversial sentence, since it just says " Studies based on morphological, genetic, and archaeological data have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region." Those are generic ways to study migrations of people, and obviously you use archaeological evidence to study ancient civilizations. There could just be single citation for each, so three total, all at the end. Having 11 actually makes the sentence way worse, since no one is going to be able to go read all 11 citations, and they fill up so much space that it looks stupid. LilBillWilliams 13:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that that sentence would not need a citation. I can appreciate your point that the citations are ugly. Thus - CITEBUNDLE - try it out - I've started it for you! Maybe some readers would appreciate reading multiple studies on this topic in this sentence. starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I get that it needs a citation or two, but it looks terrible having them all in a row mid-sentence, with words in before, between, and after them. I will try to use your advice though and see how to do that. LilBillWilliams 13:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You can put them at the end of the sentence if you want. Just note which cite is for which topic. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It took some time to figure out, but I think I bundled all the citations pretty well. Also, apparently line breaking citations goes against https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Bulleted_vertical_lists. LilBillWilliams 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what the latest problem is. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah nevermind, I thought you bundled them in line breaking form but you did them in bullet form. LilBillWilliams 14:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: actually I do have a question--How do you remove a page from a hidden category? There are some pages in the category "all articles needing copy editing", but some of them no longer have the tag at the top saying they need editing, so how do I remove them from the category? Bill Williams (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I need a specific example. Also, I will be offline soon. starship.paint (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: the page Music of Myanmar no longer has a tag at the top saying "this article needs copy editing", but it is still included in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit. Bill Williams (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss the tag at Music of Myanmar#2000s-present? I'm offline, bye. starship.paint (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I did miss that. Still though, for future reference, how do I remove pages from a category like "all articles needing copy editing". Feel free to answer whenever you are free and back online :) Bill Williams (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sole copyedit tag of 1C Company as a test. It was removed from the category. Then I reverted myself. So that seems to be how it works. I have never done that before. starship.paint (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, tell me if you can read the "Burmese language text" in that article (the translations of words), because for me they just show up as boxes like this ဆိုင်းဝိုင်. Bill Williams (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond my knowledge (I can actually see the text though). Check the WP:HELPDESK. Okay I'm really going now. 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the squares mean your platform lacks the ability to display the Burmese characters. I see the Burmese characters, not the squares. Thus edits like this appear to remove information that may be meaningful to some readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Linking your accounts is required

Per WP:ALTACCN you are required to link your accounts. Not doing so makes it appear that you are attempting to avoid the scrutiny resulting from the discussions, warnings, discretionary sanctions alerts (on both abortion and biographical articles), and your arbitration enforcement sanction (on post-1932 politics). Meters (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: Why don't you stop pretending as if you know what I am doing? I have said multiple times that I will follow the sanctions. LilBillWilliams 02:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not you follow the sanction. This has to do with the requirement that you link your accounts,. Accusing me of harassing you for that message is a personal attack. Please redact that. Meters (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. You are right about me linking my accounts, but I don't know exactly how to do that. You are wrong by accusing me of avoiding sanctions. LilBillWilliams 02:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Accusing someone of harassment is a very serious personal attack, so please avoid that in the future. You must AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I was using it as a synonym for "bothering", because he was accusing me of avoiding things. Obviously he wasn't doing something that would get him blocked. But I will avoid using that word in the future. LilBillWilliams 03:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

On top of that, I will no longer be using that account anyways. If I am completely forgetting about an account, why should I link it to this one? I will follow the sanctions, but I don't want that account anymore. How does that involve you? LilBillWilliams 02:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not say that you were avoiding scrutiny. I wrote that it "makes it appear that you are attempting to avoid the scrutiny". Not the same thing. The appearance of attempting of avoid scrutiny does not presuppose your actual intention to avoid scrutiny.. Why should you link to it? Because you are required to do so. Again, if you don't it has the appearance of attempting to avoid scrutiny.. Anyone dealing with you on your new account needs to know that you have had multiple warngns from multiple editors, have been given discretionary sanctions alerts , and are currently on an arbitration enforcement. sanction. And yes, accusing me of harassment is a personal attack. Again, please redact that. Meters (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And please fix your signature as user:BullRangifer requested. Meters (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

My user page is literally a redirect to my talk page, so I only need one of them linked. Many other people have the exact same thing, such as Aranya. Why don't you tell them to "fix their signature". Again, those sanctions are ones that I will follow, and it's not like I am avoiding a block or something. I made a new account for a reason. If you want to add a link to my old one, which literally redirects to this one, then do that. LilBillWilliams 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ALTACCN Links on both the main and alternative account user pages are required. There is nothing on this account to tell people what your previous account was, so there is no way for anyone to know what warnings, notices and sanctions you have had or are subject to. It's not for me to do it for you. If you read the link provided it tells you haw to link your accounts so " I don't know exactly how to do that" is not an excuse. And for the third time, please remove the personal attack. Meters (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: Two things: first off, it isn't a personal attack, so stop asking me about it. I'll remove it because you are probably going to report me for it. Second, I don't know how to, nor do I have the time, so instead of wasting time arguing for no reason, please do it for me. Or you can wait for a few hours and not report me till I have time to add it. LilBillWilliams 03:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the type of back-and-forth argument that is going to get you blocked completely. When an editor comes here and asks you to do something like "jump" (several things now from various editors), just ask "how high" and do it. Ask "why" afterwards. Resistance is really disruptive and a time sink. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but I am not used to just doing whatever anyone else asks, especially if I disagree. In this case though, he is correct. LilBillWilliams 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Also, this will be my main account, and I'm sorry for accusing you of "harassing" me. LilBillWilliams 03:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added the BobRoberts talk archive into this talk page's archive, fixed the wrong link on this user page's userbox, and added a userbox on the BobRoberts page. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: thanks a lot, I appreciate it. LilBillWilliams 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! starship.paint (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for repairing my botched template use. Meters (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

LilBillWilliams, you still need to fix your signature. This has been mentioned by more than one editor, you responded to user:BullRangifer by saying that you would fix it, but now you seem to be arguing that you don't need to fix it because other people's signatures are also broken. It really does not matter if there are other examples. That's an argument that is unlikely to get you very far on Misplaced Pages (you might want to read WP:Other stuff exists). Per WP:SIGLINK your signature must include at least one link to your user page, your talk page, or your contributions page. This is yet another example of you arguing against experienced editors who are attempting to show you how to do things properly. As BullRangifer pointed out above, at this point you should just stop this bahaviour or you may end up blocked. It does not matter if "you are not used to just doing whatever anyone else asks, especially if I disagree." Meters (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: My signature was already fixed, so stop bothering me. I fixed it hours ago, so you need to just back off. Again, stop involving yourself in my business. You're not doing any good, at all, and you're the one arguing with other people. Being more experienced doesn't mean you can continually annoy me. Bill Williams (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If you were being a normal person, you would have asked Aranya to "fix" their signature as well. Their signature is literally just (flower icon) Aranya. But no, you had to tell me to fix mine when I already fixed it hours ago. Bill Williams (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

All you had to do was scroll up and read my comments about the Myanmar article to see that my signature was fixed long ago. Bill Williams (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for fixing your signature.. My apologies. I wasn't aware that you had done so because you stated in this thread that you did not need to change it, and your last post in this thread still had an invalid signature..And please remove the latest harassment accusation. It is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: I removed it before you posted this comment, basically immediately after adding it. I was just really annoyed because I actually did what was asked, but was threatened that I would be blocked. Thanks for understanding. Bill Williams (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I was just confused earlier about you asking for both a user and talk page link, since I saw many users who just had their talk page (such as Aranya). I didn't mean that I was refusing to add it, just that I was confused and didn't think I needed both. Bill Williams (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it, but don't make accusations like that. We have been through this before.You are really treading thin line. as I told you, being a new user only gets you so much leeway. You have had more than your share. And once again, read what I wrote. I diid not say that your signature had to link to all of those. I said that it had to link to at least one of those. And please don't ping me to this thread again. Meters (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean my signature already had a link to my talk page, so it should have been fine. I was asked to link both. Bill Williams (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a FYI...Aranya fixed her signature immediately when I asked her yesterday. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Yeah that's fine, but I didn't see that so I was confused. I fixed it immediately after our "argument" about signatures concluded... Bill Williams (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. All's well then. You just need to tame that irritation, as it will get you in trouble around here. It also means you're one of us, a member of the human race! It's very understandable, but it tends toward a violation of AGF. Whenever you feel that way, don't post immediately, and then review, reword, and tame what you've written before posting it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's some very good advice. I'll definitely try to hold the urge and review before posting Bill Williams (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, how do you post a generic smiling face instead of a winking one? Bill Williams (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

{{smiley|1}} or your choice of various other ways. See Template:Smiley.Misplaced Pages:Teahouse and Misplaced Pages:Help desk were created for questions like this; the latter tends to receive the more technical questions. For suspected problems of a technical nature with Misplaced Pages infrastructure (as opposed to questions), use Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it . Bill Williams (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please use accurate and descriptive edit summaries.

For example, this edit included actual changes in meaning, so "wording and grammar" is misleading. ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: sorry about that, but I still don't really see what you mean. How was the meaning changed? I just reworded things and changed grammar as far as I know. Bill Williams (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Before it said "was a finalist for the St. Francis College Literary Prize for mid-career authors". Now it doesn't. That's a change in meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is a thread about you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LilBillWilliams a.k.a. BobRoberts14. You can comment there if you like. I'm interested in finding a way for you to contribute here that is less of a burden on others. ~Awilley (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Bill, don't panic, and don't rush to comment. Read it once, read it again. Breathe. starship.paint (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah it's fine, I'm not angry. I know I had been involved in a lot of bad stuff earlier, but recently I have not been arguing with other editors as much, and in the article on Fetal Viability, I am instead commenting in the talk page. I get that I am debating something there, but I have many sources and am quite sure that I am correct. The previous times I debated things and got involved in edit wars I was definitely wrong, reverting things repeatedly without consensus. But I'm not doing that anymore. Bill Williams (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Being "quite sure that I am correct" will not work as a defense around here. This is a collaborative project, IOW group work. You need to convince others first. Being right often leads to attempts to right great wrongs and defend The Truth. Both attitudes will get you in trouble, so the more right you feel, the more you should slow down and give it time, because there is no rush here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's just that I make edits that are reverted by people for such insignificant reasons, even though my factual statements are correct. I've cited sources before, including in the artificial on Fetal Viability, and someone still reverted my edit because of their personal beliefs. I don't edit things that I am political about, just things that I know about. So I am normally sure of myself when I do so. But I do agree that isn't a great defense. Bill Williams (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's actually a very bad defense. You need to strictly follow WP:BRD. When someone reverts you, do not repeat your edit, no matter what. Instead, go directly to the talk page and ONLY discuss (very calmly and patiently), hopefully until a consensus has been reached. Violations of BRD make it easy to document who started an edit war. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted my edit once. That's never allowed? My new edit wasn't the same as the old one, just partly similar. So I thought it would be acceptable. Bill Williams (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Until you get much more experience, it's safest to stay away from it. Some admins will block for very slight infractions or anything that they, not you, see as an infraction, and arguing will only get you branded as an edit warrior and troublesome editor. I have a relatively short block log. I was even blocked as an April Fools joke once, and that admin is no longer active. My first block was made by an admin who couldn't even explain to us (two of us were blocked) how we had violated 3RR. So be very careful. A block log cannot be altered. It remains as a spot on your honor forever, and it will be used against you later, so try to keep it clean. Mine is longer than necessary because the only way to fix an injustice was to reblock and unblock with an explanation, which makes my block log look longer than it really should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I've been to careless, it's just that I wanted to edit articles on things that I know about. I promise I don't have a political bias on them, my bias is just me knowing about them and therefore thinking I am right too often. So I guess I won't be able to "help" with what I really want and will have to stick to doing edits on other pages, such as citations and copy editing. I appreciate the help. Bill Williams (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good place to start. Leave your own beliefs behind when editing. We all have our beliefs, biases, and special areas of knowledge, but around here it's most important to find out how to include facts and opinions about knowledge, because documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" is our primary job. I use myriad Google Alerts to inform me of what's happening on various subjects. Then I try to see how those sources can be incorporated into articles. I start with a source, not my own beliefs. Sources are the basis of everything here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I have personal opinions influencing me, it's just me thinking I'm right about something. So obviously I need to cut down on that habit and use more sources instead. Bill Williams (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s better to not have any opinions - in the sense that let the reliable sources speak for you. Read WP:VNT, and source everything. Oh and I have zero blocks so far, maybe I can offer better advice than BullRangifer (April Fool’s block is horrific and Df67 is still around actually) which is ... for now at least, until you learn policies, stay out of fights because everyone else is more experienced (which means that it’s more likely you’re wrong) starship.paint (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I got the wrong admin. It was the first one I was referring to. They are blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

DS notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 El_C 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, but I am already well aware of this. I've gotten that notice already. Bill Williams (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it anywhere. El_C 15:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Discretionary sanctions notices

This user has previously been notified of discretionary sanctions on the below topics. starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-1932 politics of the United States - 13 June 2019 Living or recently deceased people - 15 June 2019 Abortion - 16 June 2019" It is at the top of this page. Bill Williams (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. El_C 15:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's all good, thanks for reminding me . Bill Williams (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

One account

Hello LilBillWilliams, On the 16th June you stated and I quote Also, I will just be using this account from here on out, since the name doesn't have a number. I'll follow the sanctions that tell me not to edit any post-1932 political articles, and I'll mainly stick to copy editing for some time. Thanks for the help @Awilley: :) LilBillWilliams (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC) yet you have continued to use both accounts,
Please read WP:SOCKLEGIT - Unless you have clear and valid reasons as to why you're using 2 accounts I would cease editing from the Bob account immediately otherwise you are going to be blocked,
Thanks. –Davey2010 17:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I used the other account for a single edit to upload an image, because it is 4+ days old, and I wasn't able to with this account. Is that a problem? Bill Williams (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem, You treat the Bill account as if it's your only account regardless of restrictions, You made the choice to start this account you can't keep switching back and fourth even if it is just for one edit, Thanks, –Davey2010 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is that a problem for a single edit? I'm not using it to avoid restrictions or vandalize, so I don't see what's wrong. Bill Williams (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

ec... There you go again. Don't object. When someone says "jump" ask "how high". Stop being so argumentative or we'll just give up and jettison you as a waste of time.

You really need to ignore that other account. Log out of it completely. Then make sure that every single edit going forward is credited to this account. That way all of your (as in you, the person) contributions are found in only one place. Less confusion and less chance of being accused of wrongdoing that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't just demand this and that and provide no reasoning for it. I read through the article on sock puppeting. It did not agree with his reasoning. Just demanding that I do something and making me do it isn't the right thing to do. My disagreeing doesn't make me "a waste of time". I'm questioning what he asked because the article he suggested said otherwise. Don't just tell me what to do without actually explaining yourself. He didn't say that I should do it, he said I would be blocked if I didn't. That does not seem to be true. Bill Williams (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if you're going to be that way, I'm going to give up on you. If there is ever a situation where you will need my support, you will likely find me supporting your accusers. Too bad. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Again, I am listening to your advice. I just want to be able to ask questions if I don't understand something. Why don't I get to do that? Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't a problem. The only listed misuses of a second account are

• Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.
• Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
• Circumventing policies: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Shortcut
  • WP:STRAWSOCK
• Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.
• Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions. See also WP:EVASION.
• Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden. Shortcut
  • WP:SCRUTINY
• Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Shortcuts
  • WP:GHBH
  • WP:HAND
• "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism. Shortcut
  • WP:LOUTSOCK
• Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts when it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. When editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.
• Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Misplaced Pages:Clean start. Shortcut
  • WP:ROLE
• Role accounts: Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts", or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked. Many first time editors may sign up an account with a username that implies it is a role account or is being shared. Such accounts are permitted only if the account information is forever limited to one individual; however, policy recommends that usernames avoid being misleading or disruptive. As such, if you edit for an organization, please refer to Misplaced Pages's username policy for guidance on choosing a name or a replacement name that can avoid these problems. Role account exceptions can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list below), and approved bots with multiple managers. See Username policy – Sharing accounts.
• Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA. Shortcut
  • WP:ADMINSOCK
• Using more than one administrator account: Editors may not have more than one account with administrator user rights, except for bots with administrator privileges. However, Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. If an administrator leaves the project, returns under a new username, and is nominated for adminship, he or she must resign or give up the administrator access of their old account.
• Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: Using an alternative account to participate in a discussion about another account operated by the same person.

None of those state editing with different accounts. So I see absolutely no problem at all with me making a single edit with another account. Bill Williams (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be technically correct, but when you get objections, as above, you should see that being technically correct is only going to cause you more problems down the road. Being collaborative is better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree you're not avoiding restrictions or vandalising however from my understanding as I said unless you have valid reasons for 2 accounts then you do need to stick to one regardless of new-account restrictions, Many thanks, –Davey2010 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:CLEANSTART (which is what I'd consider this to be) - I'm not going to quote it nor am I going to get into a debate over it - I'm simply giving you some advice on what should and shouldn't be done but ofcourse you're more than welcome to ignore everything I've just said.

Thanks. –Davey2010 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You guys seem to think every one of my questions is me trying to argue. They aren't. I'm just asking because he did not seem to be correct. You're the ones responding with threats to block me and telling me to stop arguing, when all I did was ask a question. I was not being aggressive, I was asking because what he said did not seem accurate. Why is asking about things so bad? Bill Williams (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I do not want to ignore what any of you guys are telling me. I am just asking because I am new and do not know as much as you guys, so when you give me a reference that seems to disagree with what you said, I'm going to ask about it. Bill Williams (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In heated discussions it's best for you to obey now and ask later. When you become a more experienced editor your questions will be tolerated better, but not now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do appreciate it. It's just that I used the other account for a good reason, but you threatened to block me, so that didn't make me happy... Questions should be tolerated at any time, so just demanding things of unexperienced people and not letting them ask about what you tell them to do doesn't make sense. Politicians are almost always the more experienced ones than normal people, but normal people still get to ask and criticize the politicians about what they do....Bill Williams (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is the probably the best one, Again tho read WP:SOCKLEGIT and if your account doesn't meet any one of those bullet points then you shouldn't be editing with it it's really as simple as that,

Using 2 accounts could fool people, be used to "win" an edit warring war, be used to vandalise etc etc and etc (the list goes on).... so sticking to one account makes things fair for others and saves less resources as a whole,

I have one account and have done since joining as has many many other editors here.

I apologise if the above message upset you that certainly wasn't my intention however good or bad using 2 accounts can lead to blocks that's all and I would hate to see that happen but as I said if you stick to this account from here onwards you'll be fine :), Thanks. –Davey2010 17:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: thanks a lot for the advice, I'll try to only use this account whenever I can. I appreciate you helping out . Bill Williams (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I have placed a block on your other account so we can avoid any drama in the future if you forget or accidentally log into the other account. On the images thing, I can make this account "confirmed" so you don't need to wait the rest of the 7 days before having this account "confirmed". ~Awilley (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: thanks a lot, I appreciate it, but when you blocked that account's IP it made it so I can't edit on this one... Bill Williams (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I was pretty sure I had unchecked the autoblock IP box. How about now? ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, now I can edit it. Also, can I remove my template saying "this user has an alternate account", since I won't ever be using that account again? Bill Williams (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, fine by me. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Pretty sure there's a different userbox that says something along the lines of "This user has a previous account" if you wanted to put that up. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll add that one, thanks a lot for helping me out . When I have time tomorrow I'll get back to editing, but not arguing or on controversial things. Just helping out on normal pages for the time being. Bill Williams (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for ways to help out, you might want to check out Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy and go through their training program. ~Awilley (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll definitely check it out. I don't want to just cause more trouble like I have by getting involved in controversy, I'd much rather help out the community :). Bill Williams (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: and @Awilley: agree that the user should not be using both accounts, but I strongly disagree that this user should be able to remove all connections between the accounts. This is not a clean start. situation. The user has continued with the same behaviour on the same articles, has acknowledged the connection between the accounts, and has had multiple warnings and an arbitration enforcement sanction on the first account (topic banned from post-1932 politics for a period of 2 weeks from June 16 ). The account was not eligible for a clean start, It's a second account which should instead have been an account rename. Allowing the user to remove the connection between the account would have the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Meters (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC).

No, it wouldn't. In case you haven't noticed, there are at least a dozen people watching everything I do. I am not stupid enough to go and pretend like nothing happened. I'm also not dumb enough to go and edit post-1932 politics for about a week. Bill Williams (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And here we go again. How many times do people have to strongly suggest tot you that you not argue with experienced editors. Replacing it with a "previous account" notice is fine, but removing the connection completely is not. Not all editors who come to your page in the future will be aware of your previous account. Since this is not a clean start you are not allowed to .avoid scrutiny by hiding the actions of the previous account .It does not matter what you think. If you want a clean start, then wait until your sanction has ended, the current ANI has closed, and any possible restrictions from the ANI have ended. Then create a new account, do not connect it to the current accounts, do not make any further edits from the original accounts, and do not edit the same article or in such a manner that you will be recognized. That's a clean start. Meters (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with any experienced editors. I just said that I would add a template saying that BobRoberts14 is my past account. Why are you arguing about that and being rude? You may not think you are, but you're definitely bothering me. You can say "that's a serious personal attack, remove that", but it's just true. I already said that I am not completely removing it. First you demand over and over that I change my signature and that I did not listen to the other editors and change it, but I had already changed it hours ago. Then you keep on arguing about numerous things. Bill Williams (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You said "And here we go again. How many times do people have to strongly suggest tot you that you not argue with experienced editors," when I literally said that I would do what he asked of me. That is completely rude and unnecessary. Bill Williams (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I literally said "I think I'll add that one", so what are you harassing me about? Bill Williams (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Meters, I think having the connection between accounts is sufficient with the old usertalk redirecting here, a template on the old userpage saying this is the new account, the history of the old talk archived under talk page, and a note on this user page linking to the old account.

BillWilliams, for the last time, STOP accusing people of harassing you. ~Awilley (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it and wont do that again. But he is bothering me about things for no good reason. Twice in a row about things that I actually agreed with him on. Bill Williams (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, it has just been him that I said that about. He definitely isn't harassing me, that word would be a gross exaggeration. I was just very bothered by the fact that I actually agreed with him, yet he threatened to block me... Bill Williams (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec)BillWilliams, it was simply an edit conflict on a comment to the other editors. Please WP:AGF.. Awilley, notices on the old user page are not helpful for anyone coming to this page. As for any notice on this page, it appears to be insufficient for newcomers, given that user:El_C left a repeat DS notice, and didn't realize what had happened even after being told that the user had already been given the DS notice. Meters (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And where did I threaten o block you? Meters (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You said "you should just stop this bahaviour or you may end up blocked" after you accused me of not changing my signature, even though I already had. Bill Williams (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Meters, ElC, like most people placing DSAlert templates, probably didn't look at the talk page for more than 5 seconds before placing the template, relying instead on the edit filter to tell him them if Bill had been warned previously.

@Bill, Read WP:REFACTOR. When you are changing comments that have already been replied to you need to use strike and underline markup instead of just replacing words. ~Awilley (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll read the article, thanks for the advice. Bill Williams (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I read the whole article, but it doesn't say exactly when you are allowed to delete things without striking through. When can you delete something instead of striking through it? Bill Williams (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @BullRangifer: Don't you ever come onto a user's talk page and threaten them with bonus non-existent policies followed by more threats of a guaranteed oppose. Your comments are well beyond civil. All editors, regardless of experience, may ask questions. Who the hell are you to tell them not to? Please tell me you were just joking the whole time.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Meters: That goes for you too. There is no status or class that gives anyone more authority. Experienced editors are more likely to be right because of their experience. But their experience doesn't make them right. In this case, the experienced editors were wrong and depended on a logical fallacy to bully another editor into submission.--v/r - TP 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, technically you and Bill are right about this one issue, but collaboration is where the problem lies, and the quick comments above should be seen within a much larger context where there is literally a proposal now at AN/I to limit him to one edit per talk page per day and to stop him from bludgeoning when he is right, not just when he's wrong. When he's right! That leaves no room for being technically right but collaboratively doubtful. See the discussion here. Yes, it's entirely possible to be right and disruptive at the same time. We aren't questioning him when right, but just his approach. This whole business has worn down quite a few good editors here. We're tired and we also make mistakes. The AN/I thread deals with that too. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@TParis: although I am inclined to agree, they are both partially right. Sometimes in article talk pages, I go too far. But on my own user page, I normally just question what people ask of me because I am new and want to learn more, or because they seem to be contradicting something. So in my talk page, I do debate things for a long time, but normally I am just asking questions about things... On article pages though, I sometimes have gone too far. Recently in fetal viability though, I think I was completely fine reinstating part of my edit a single time before going to the talk page. The only topic you can really ban me from reasonably is post 1932 politics, because some of my arguments in those talk pages were rude and I should not have been. I do agree with Paris in the fact that I was just asking about something, and you guys kept threatening to get me blocked because I asked how things worked or was annoyed when meters accused me of things I didn't do. I don't agree with most of the users trying to get me only allowed to edit an article talk page one time, since their reasoning is normally that I am questioning experienced editors, when I am mainly confused or trying to learn. Bill Williams (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, they somehow expect me not to respond when people revert my edits or threaten sanctions on me... Why shouldn't I debate things and try to get them in my favor? I can understand punishing me for being uncivil, but just asking questions and civilly debating doesn't seem like a problem unless I am harassing editors. What most of them are asking is for me to never debate people reverting my edits, never question what people ask of me, and to not edit anything controversial until I become more experienced. I can agree with the lats one, and I should be punished if I break revert rules or become uncivil, but questioning people who revert my edits or try to sanction me is the right thing for me to do in my opinion. Bill Williams (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I get that they are more experienced, but all of them have been wrong at some point when they asked me to do something or spoke to me. So when I ask if they are correct about something, it's for the benefit of everyone, making sure they know what they are saying and making sure I know what is correct. Just because they are more experienced does not mean they are always right. So again, I don't see why I can't ask them questions. I thought you are encouraged to try and learn things? Bill Williams (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Collaboration is as much your responsibility as LilBill's. When you are wrong and you keep berating someone else because your "experience" and they aren't, that is not collaborative. You failed to be collaborative, not Bill. Your approach was at issue here. And instead of apologizing, you seem to be doubling down. Model the behavior you expect of Bill and apologize, commit to not do it again.--v/r - TP 01:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah man, I think you're being too much on my side. I sometimes do argue too much, that's for sure. But in certain cases, such as this one, I actually did the right thing, but they thought I didn't so they argued and threatened to block me. Then I was asking about what they demanded and they threatened to block me again, among other things. Still though, I questioned them making it so that I can only post one edit to any article talk page per day, for an entire year, and people responded with things such as "Is sanction negotiation a thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)" and "Everything's a negotiation when you're a master with the bludgeon. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)" I'm trying to make it so I can actually participate in the community, what is so bad about that? Bill Williams (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I still really appreciate the support, and again, I am definitely going to try to argue less in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To better understand what I am talking about, read the comments in https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LilBillWilliams_a.k.a._BobRoberts14 concerning punishing me for debating things in talk pages and reverting people's edits (most are from when I first started editing about a week ago) Bill Williams (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

1. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry.

Continued from AN/I

I wanted to continue here so as not to burden the noticeboard or discuss things publicly which might be better handled with less attention. That being said, I thought I owed it to you to at least try to spell out what I meant. I certainly would not discourage you from arguing for whatever restrictions or limits strike you as fair, though I think strategically you could do so more effectively (instead of "NO. ONE YEAR IS TOO LONG" you might find "yes, I understand, but I think three months is a more appropriate length" works better). But what really struck me was when Bishonen mentioned that you had worn out BullRangifer's good will, you felt the need to say "I did not tell BullRangifer to stop bothering me or say anything rude to them, so I didn't just 'wear out' their good will." First off, when you are arguing about someone else's subjective feelings, you have already lost, full stop. Secondly, looking directly above this section, I see exactly what she means -- and it's not like BullRangifer disguised his feelings. "Okay, if you're going to be that way, I'm going to give up on you" strikes me as an indication that you have worn out someone's good will. By thgat specific response to Bishonen, you have created conflict, alienated Bishonen, possibly further alienated BullRangifer, if he is (or becomes) aware, and quite honestly, injected suspicion in my mind--to what end?

Part of being a Wikipedian -- even a low-level one, such as myself -- is learning to live with things you don't like. You will have preferred versions of articles. Sometimes consensus will be against you. You have to learn that persuasion is a slow process and not always successful. By all means, argue for your positions, but be prepared for things you don't like to persist, sometimes for quite a while indeed. Secondly, choose your arguments. If you choose to make meritless, sophistical responses to everything you perceive as an attack, then we around you will be quite within our rights to assume everything you say is meritless and sophistical.

Again, I honestly think you can do this and be, in all likelihood, a more valuable Wikipedian than I am. But you're going to have to adjust your attitude and approach. Good luck however you choose to proceed. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, you know this isn't private... It's Misplaced Pages, and anyone can still read this talk page if they want to. Second, you're exaggerating things too much. I did not say "NO. ONE YEAR IS TOO LONG," in all caps, or even in that aggressive manner with a period after "no". Don't put things in quotations like that if they are going to be far from the truth. What I said was "I also think that a year is too long of a period." I do not take everything as a "personal attack", I just debate things to try and prove my point. I do agree that some good points were made in that discussion, but some people did not need to get involved. I was annoyed at R2 because he has been blocked and sanctioned before and has insulted admins multiple times, yet he said I am incompetent and multiple other things. Thanks for the advice though, I appreciate it. I will try not to debate things as much, but it's hard with people like R2--his proposal was literally to block me everywhere, permanently. Bill Williams (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Less attention" does not mean private. I am quite well aware of the public nature of Misplaced Pages. I thought my hyperbolic affect would make clear that I did not consider it a direct quote, but apparently not. For that I apologize. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: it's all good, you did make valid points. Also, just know that I am never actually emotional (mad, sad, embarrassed, etc.) when I respond to comments, I just have a writing style that can be too aggressive. So I apologize for that. Bill Williams (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where to post this, but in general, you should not edit other people's comments per WP:TPO. Also, stop bringing R2's history up, you are being discussed, not R2. You edited in the same area as R2 before, so naturally, they are able to comment on your edits. starship.paint (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: no, they have continually just made stupid insults regarding me that were unnecessary. Their history isn't what matters, but they have insulted me in the thread multiple times. Bill Williams (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that their history isn't really necessary to bring up, so I'll stop. But what they are currently doing is still too much, and I was saying that they have insulted people in the past. I never have said things like "fuck off", "you're incompetent", "this is hopeless", etc. They have said all of that, yet they are commenting on me getting punished. Seems like he should be defending himself from sanctions about his civility instead of attacking others. Bill Williams (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If they insult you, everyone can see it, it’s apparent nobody else thinks they are crossing a a line. Furthermore, you’re not being sanctioned on civility. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't edit while logged out

You need to stop editing while logged out. You must only edit while logged in to this account. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice buddy, no one said that isn't allowed, and I immediately reverted the edit and used my main account afterwards. You're helping no one by criticizing something that I already fixed. Bill Williams (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That was fixed so many hours ago. What do you think you're doing criticizing something that was already fixed? Bill Williams (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hilarious that you say "you need to stop" when I already did, and I made one edit. You're not helping anyone, so bother someone else. Bill Williams (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you understood that it's not allowed. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I get it man, but I already knew that. That's why I immediately reverted the edit. I didn't realize I was logged out. So criticizing that just makes it seem like I need to be punished... Bill Williams (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

LilB - You were told editing from 2 accounts was not allowed and that you should stop .... so why in gods name would you open up wounds by editing as an IP?, Give the blatant disregard for SOCK and given the continued attempts at GAMING the system and wikilayering here I question whether you should still be editing here at all,

I should tell you the communities patience here only goes so far. –Davey2010 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again. Read my message... It says I thought I was logged in, and that I literally already knew this. Guess why? Because I reverted the edit immediately after making it after realizing I was logged out. You're giving blatant disregard to not bothering people about things they already know. Bill Williams (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just go do something else instead of saying "so why in gods name would you open up wounds by editing as an IP?, Give the blatant disregard for SOCK and given the continued attempts at GAMING the system " when someone accidentally makes a single edit with their IP and reverts it a minute later. Bill Williams (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is check the edit history of this page and see that I reverted it less than a minute later. Stop bothering me, you're helping no one. Bill Williams (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"I thought I was logged in" - Except that isn't quite true is it..... Prior to using the IP here you've been editing another article with it. Lying gets you no where my friend. –Davey2010 17:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh really now? Prove it, instead of being a fool and accusing people of lying for no reason. I made two edits on this talk page, one reverting the other because I realized I wasn't logged in. But you're calling me the liar? Bill Williams (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You think I am stupid enough to edit an article and start an edit war like that? That was some idiot at my school, that's why they weren't logged in. I'm not retarded enough to revert edits like that after being told not to repeatedly. Bill Williams (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoever edited that article with this IP is an absolute fool. I still had it open, so after reading it they must have gone and been an idiot deciding to edit it. I only make edits while logged in if I am paying attention. But that edit wasn't even made by me either way, just some idiot on my IP. Bill Williams (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was literally just warned not to do that nonsense, so I quit editing that article because it got no where. It would be completely foolish to go and do the same thing again. I'll speak to the person who did that, because that was really dumb of them... Bill Williams (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As it shows, I went and edited that article about 5+ days ago. I quit because there was no point, since my edits were getting reverted. Someone who I was reading the article next to just decided to be a fool and come edit it after I said I read the article. I apologize for them doing that, since their edits were wrong either way. Bill Williams (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a simple mistake — let's cut the guy some slack. El_C 17:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks, but whoever edited that article with my IP was being dumb. I will talk to them, but I swear it was not me on that same sex marriage article yesterday. I was talking to some people about it before, so I think I know who it was. Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So it was my little brother, and I told him to never edit on any of the computers again. Still, it doesn't make sense for no one on this IP address to ever be able to edit, since you know if he finds a grammar mistake or something he is going to edit it. I've never heard that editing on your IP is not allowed, but I know that what he did isn't allowed. Bill Williams (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I misread. Not a big deal, but, yeah, please don't let it happen again. El_C 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'll try not to, but they still didn't need to be so rude about it... Bill Williams (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, BullRangifer was talking about my talk page, but Davey then mentioned something else. Bill Williams (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Your little brother can create an account and avoid that problem. Also, that "idiot at my school" can do the same. While I only linked to that one edit, I was referring to any editing from that IP. I had already checked out its activity, the activity of your previous username, and your current username. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, using dual user names gives rise to the appearance of impropriety here, even if it was totally innocent. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't want him editing either way, but sure, I can ask him to make an account. That would probably be the best idea, since he is probably going to edit regardless of what I tell him. He doesn't know about Misplaced Pages's rules very much, so he thought he could just go and change stuff without consensus or sources... Bill Williams (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)