User talk:BillCaxton

It's easy to bicker, so please respect edits by Talk(ing) ~ at least there is a public record then...

Welcome!
Hello, BillCaxton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * 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 Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Some material for you -Snowded TALK 11:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the above. Inserting an essay on Brexit without references is not acceptable in wikipedia -Snowded TALK 22:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hartlepool by-election
Hi Bill

I have removed a lot of your editing for the Hartlepool by-election. The great big chunk of text had little specific connection to Hartlepool so could be safely deleted. The content about "gerrymandering" by the Electoral Commission sounds more like a personal grievance, and in any case, gerrymandering is about boundaries, not the Register of Political Parties. The English Independence (Independent?) Party does not have an article here because of rules about notability - see WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a blog (see WP:NOTBLOG) so you just need to be careful about writing a constant stream of writing you think might be helpful during a campaign or election: if you want to write campaign material, put it on a leaflet, not on Wikipedia.

Also I'm looking at the Hartlepool Mail website now, and can't see any quote from Neil Humphrey or the English Independence Party. Can you provide a source?

Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 04:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

More Relevant is that Northern Independence was attacked the same way, as EIP. It is unhealthy, given Lockdowns have limited democracy. First Parliamentary Byelection / PCC / Mayor / Local Boroughs in nearly 2 years, and the Commission want to move their deadline earlier than normal?

It missed its deadline to register for 6th May elections. Newer parties need to be cut some slack. In most cases, just a little blurb and link to website is enough. You have 2 main parties that dominate politics from a hundred years ago, they did not have to go through wikipedia removal challenges. If a party / candidate is on a ballot, I see that as relevant. Given they intend to stand, maybe they will go the ANTI-Corbyn deed-poll route. There is no need for a party application to take many months. This is biased jobs-worths. They whinge of Cambridge Analytica doing bad stuff, they are much worse (harvesting social media of friends / family of party officials, even children under 18. Why is any sketchy head of a gov dept disputing whether he can have pictures of a kid on his home laptop; and using staff to threaten people, contrary to Nolan; either someone is your legal representative in a private libel case, and can show paperwork, or they are not, and just a paid civil servant). Just they get to keep their own bad dealings behind closed doors.

Will delete, but you get the idea.. the system is rigged, and wikipedia plonkers are helping that.

Yes, garrymandering not the right word, but is there a word for removing political parties because you are biased against them? Do not want them to grow to oppose major parties. Press = Censorship, Blackout? Party Suppression? Slippery slope all starts with removing likely opposition parties... Facist / Communist, they both do the same. 'One party pseudo-dictatorship, with weedy opposition' is far too long. https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/outlawing-opposition ...

May 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2021 Batley and Spen by-election. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Czello 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Doktorbuk was an elected LibDem councillor, how is that 'neutral point of view'. Please restore selections news coverage that was his agenda all along ~ please to not be manipulated into deleting his party's rivals! I would also note that he 'hates UKIP' no suprises for why they are challenged? The result was all reference to 2 rival candidates was removed in an edit war (he waged, and I, the original editor am the one who is blocked? His is the vandalism and lack of using Talk page. Now we know why, so what is your party membership / affiliations Czello and Sparkle1? also Libdems?).

Your recent editing history at 2021 Batley and Spen by-election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 08:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:2021 Batley and Spen by-election, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You CZello and DoctorBUK seem to be involved in an edit war. You are removing whole sections with no explanation, and at one point DoctorBuk is removing the most relevant refs, only to be followed by you Czello saying no references. Looks like a stitch-up. I WOULD PREFER A 3RD PARTY FIXES DAMAGE. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. This needs an adult. 'HANG Murderers'is cited in the press, so with your political axe to grind, you removed what had been up. You cannot say hey we removed table, when you also deleted Campaign entry ~ that is DECEPTIVE editing.

It has since become evidenced that Doktorbuk was a LibDem councillor, so is NOT independent of commenting on 'rival' parties during an election.

Batley and Spen
Hey Bill.

The results boxes in by-election pages have always been written in the style "Bill Caxton", not "CAXTON Bill". Please don't introduce a different style without checking if it's acceptable to the wider community. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:English Independence (Political Party)/meta/shortname


A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence (Political Party)/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"User appears to have misinterpreted what a template is"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Czello 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:English Independence Party/meta/color


A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence Party/meta/color, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:English Independence Party/meta/shortname


A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence Party/meta/shortname, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Czello 08:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You CZello and DoctorBUK seem to be involved in an edit war. You are removing whole sections with no explanation, and at one point DoctorBuk is removing the most relevant refs, only to be followed by you Czello saying no references. Looks like a stitch-up. I WOULD PREFER A 3RD PARTY FIXES DAMAGE. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. This needs an adult. 'HANG Murderers'is cited in the press, so with your political axe to grind, you removed what had been up. You cannot say hey we removed table, when you also deleted Campaign entry ~ that is DECEPTIVE editing.

Hello, I'm PatGallacher. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2021 Batley and Spen by-election appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The source and information which you are attempting to add appears to refer to the 2016 by-election, not this one. PatGallacher (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2021 Batley and Spen by-election. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not start this edit-war. They kept reverting my edits, without talking as I asked. They even deleted candidates selection section when saying they were only removing a table. This only affected 'rival' candidates to their organised political bias.

I am blocked for 48 hours. I can wait. The bias of Doktorbuk and conspiracy with others to "control" rival parties needs addressing after that. I created the main edit, which they systematically took apart for their own biased purposes. Wikipedia cannot afford to have 'party' members attack rival parties without investigation, during an election. The result was all reference to UKIP and Hang Murderers candidates were removed during the active phase of an announced election. The UK has laws which may have been broken. It is time for Doktorbuk to hang up his (biased) pen... Doktorbuk is dragging Wikipedia into ill repute, by admitting deliberate bias against parties, inlcuding English Independence and UK Independence. Imagine either party becomes a government, wikipedia would likely get banned or taxed for being biased election advertising ~ these muppets are making decisions way above their grade.

"Ironically" (couldn't resist it), PLEASE take the time to put the page correct, as a non-UK outsider. Use your words, but please edit war with those implicated so far, and instead only allow completely new editors. This is an election, there was a newspaper citation for Hang Murderers, and even UKIP. These should be restored, immediately, regardless of anything else. Voters will come to wikipedia expecting to find a true and unbiased list of canididates; but due to lack of coverage and censorship, that will be skewed.
 * Your personal attacks are about to get you blocked indefinitely. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)