User talk:Billy from Bath

This is my brand new message page, try not to make it too messy please.

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Caisson lock, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Billy from Bath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Caisson lock. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Great work on Prior Park College Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Persons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

but Jesuit opinion was against further confrontation. Campion was forced into disputation in the [[Tower of London] under adverse conditions.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Thomas M. McCoog|author2=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester

Your edits to Dorchester, Dorset have been reverted as being inaccurate and POV. Your comments on the Hardy Monument are completely wrong, the monument is to Thomas Masterman Hardy, Nelson's Flag Captain and not to the novelist. Your other edits are simply POV or unnecessary. Please do not insert your own opinions on Wikipedia, it is against policy. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification of the two Thomas Hardy's. However , the factual information content is still a valid contribution and has been reinstated. I refer you to study WP:OWN. Billy from Bath (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture me on WP:OWN, I have been here long enough to observe Wikipedia conventions. Could I ask you to check your facts, grammar and spellings before editing any article. Also do not insert POV edits. Failure to do so, will certainly see your contributions reverted by either rollback or admin editors. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude

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.

The attitude of some "editors" on Wikipedia are what prevents more people from contributing. It's not all about badges, numbers and "lists" here. It should be a publication that stimulates readers, it should discourage vandals, it should encourage improvement in contributions without being too officiuos or patronising, as it is it is all about Ego's.Billy from Bath (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This contributor was also known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francis_E_Williams

June 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

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)"[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]