User talk:Wwilloughby
More information needed about File:MG-OlliverDillard.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:MG-OlliverDillard.jpg. However, it needs some more work before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.
Please click here and do the following:
- Add a description of where the image comes from (not what it is) and who the creator is. Please be specific, and include a link if you can.
- Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.
If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.
Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kilopi (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Possibly unfree File:MG-OlliverDillard.jpg
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MG-OlliverDillard.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Icy // ♫ 21:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
William Robertson Desobry
[edit]Good day. I was reviewing your excellent article and noticed that the link on the Graves site goes to Robert Leahy Fair's gravestone and image, rather than Desobry's. Once that is fixed, I will create the page. Well done. Snowysusan 10:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind - I found the correct link and edited it so it goes to the right record. Cheers. Snowysusan 13:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
[edit]You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Snowysusan 13:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwilloughby. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
Wwilloughby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not deny that simultaneous editing efforts were made by two distant different people using different accounts. No attempt to hide that was made. SPerkins and wwilloughby are two different people using different accounts, but collaborating on military history projects. We work for the same organization, so any similarities in IP address are a result of network address translation not an evil plot. All collaboration on Sandbox pages was meant to confirm facts and present a accurate historical view of the subjects. I am very disappointed that no attempt to email my account, so that I could be made aware of the allegations of misconduct was made. Along with with this notification of a block an offer to help clear my name and account should have been made. Since I do not fully understand the charges against me, nor do I understand how a third person could be tied to my account I am requesting help to clear my name and restore my account. I read the unblock page, but it assumes guilt, and does not clearly identify how to clear one's self of these charges. Is there no clear way to restore my name and editing privileges? I do not wish to dive into a deep philosophical discussion of the merits of collaborative research, only to begin contributing to Wikipedia again with a better understanding of the rules that were violated, so that I can avoid similar infractions in the future. Any help in understanding the charges made, the infractions committed, and proper manner for clearing my name and restoring my account would be greatly appreciated. Once my account has been restored and I fully understand the rules I would like to begin working on a page detailing the correct means of collaborating. This is obviously an area of weakness that needs to be better explained to new editors.
Decline reason:
Your explanation sounds like a handwave—an elaborate and politely put handwave, but a handwave nonetheless. You "do not fully understand the nature of the charges against you"? You were provided with this link; please read it. In case you don't want to, the nut is this: You used multiple accounts and claimed they were different people. That's what we decided based on our own investigative procedures. And it's more than your IP address. I don't have access to Checkuser, and even so I believe that you and Perkins FC2 are the same person as well. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
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.
Wwilloughby (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Wwilloughby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to begin contributing to Wikipedia again and believe unblocking my account would be good for the community. It would show Wikipedia truly believes in not biting newbie editors who make mistakes and learn from them. Wwilloughby (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since the same abuse of multiple accounts has continued as recently as a week ago: no. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
Fiction, pure and simple. Obviously you super smart folks have me mistaken for someone else. I made edits on this site in the last three months using multiple accounts? Then why in God's name would I ask to have this account unblocked? I was polite and respectful and waited several months hoping to appeal to someone with some IT skill who could read logs and make an intelligent decison. Last time I requested politely to have the block lifted I was told it was a hand wave. What a rude and disrespectful response. Respect is a two-way street. I am actually waving a hand at the monitor this time, but I am only using one finger. Care to guess which finger it is? Wwilloughby (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) So, I decided to check and see if anyone ever reviewed indefinite blocks and to see if I could go back to making contributions to the web site. Seems indefinite in Wikipedia terms means forever. For a good time read the entry below from the blocks page. I was researching how to appeal the block again, and found some interesting information about blocks verses banns. So, as long as you are blocked, you can post here and rant, but if you anger the "cool kids" you get banned and can't even post here. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals further). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see Requesting blocks). This all sounds very civilized, but the truth of the matter is there is a reason why Wikipedia is not accepted by a single university as a peer reviewed source for scholarly work. Peer review of work is labeled as bad, and collaborative work is not only discouraged, but punished. Ignore the noise about blocking is not punishment. It is a lie. No warning, no email, as long as you are suspected you are guilty. Oh I'm sure the original blocker felt they were doing nothing wrong. I'm sure the Nazis felt they were justified in trying to reclaim the Rhineland too, and we know how that turned out, don't we? The administrator probably even contacted whom ever the other offending party was, but was everyone contacted? no! Am I mad as hell, yes! Is there anything I can do about it? No. I especially like the threat about making too may requests to be unblocked. What the hell is that? So, a smart person would ask, why are you typing here if you know there is no hope of ever getting unblocked? Truthfully? I was working on a college paper and stumbled upon a bit of useful information on a page here, and though to myself. Hey I could edit that page and make it better... oh wait, I'm blocked for a crime I don't even understand for an offense that makes no sense. I won't bother you with professing my innocence. Group collaboration to create a better article is an accepted practice in most sharing environments. Not in this great forum though. Okay, so enough mindless rambling for one evening. Think I'll back to working on my paper. One day if I ever have the honor of teaching at a university I will remember this harsh lesson, and like my current professors "block" students from using Wikipedia. Threat? nope, just a fact I felt should document here to remind myself why I should log into the university library and finish my research there instead. Oh and one last note, I'm still waving that lone finger... no guesses yet as to which one it is yet. middle finger. Or I'd be banned not just block, because the difference is so much less punitive. smiley