User talk:Bill Williams/Archive 2

Vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article
Hello, I'm Asaturn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Urnas Abiertas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting edits of mine that include sourced information. You are using undue, unsourced, original research claims that are extremely inaccurate and biased. Bill Williams 09:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Twitter, linkedin, and the about pages of two different websites do not back up your claims that they are a U.S. state department puppet meant to take down the Nicaraguan government. Bill Williams 09:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I never made any of these claims. The sources are from their own website. If you have an issue with their own website as a source, please send me an alternative. Also, I undid your last blanking because it is blatant vandalism and completely inappropriate considering our history and your continued harassment and abuse of this platform. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"The completely anonymous report is only four pages (in both English and Spanish) and does not cite any specific data or methodologies.[3] Their Twitter account has just 1,340 followers.

Urnas Abiertas (founded May 2021) is a non-governmental organization which calls itself a "citizen observatory," but does not list any technical credentials on either their website or public Twitter account. The organization has become notable for challenging the official election results of the 2021 Nicaraguan general election, claiming that voter turnout was only 18.5% based on an "analysis by 1,450 poll-watchers at 563 voting centers across Nicaragua." The completely anonymous report is only four pages (in both English and Spanish) and does not cite any specific data or methodologies. Their Twitter account has just 1,340 followers.

While this organization does not list official staff, the blog page on their official website links to a presentation given at Wilson Center, a US government-funded think tank. This talk was organized by two individuals who claim to work for Urnas Abiertas, Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera and Olga Valle López—both partisan right-wing activists. Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera is an anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front activist affiliated with the European Commission and also worked as a "consultant" for Organization of American States during the 2018–2021 Nicaraguan protests.

Urnas Abiertas stated prior to the election taking place that their goal was to discredit the results in a presentation done in partnership with International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and Venezuelan right-wing activists at the Andrés Bello Catholic University (Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, UCAB). Unlike the report published on their website, this report from Urnas Abiertas lists the authors: three foreigners from International IDEA, two Venezuelan anti-Chavista activists, and just two Nicaraguans: Olga Valle and Pedro Fonseca of Urnas Abiertas. UCAB is directed by Francisco José Virtuoso, a conservative priest belonging to the Society of Jesus who openly supported the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt. "

This is your edit and sources, which basically consist of social media and the about page of two different websites, none of which backs up your claims. Bill Williams 10:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you may have a vision problem worse than me! The links you shared here clearly show more than just a website and a few social media links. I linked directly to two reports (the PDFs, #3 and #8) as well as a news article (#9). If you have something constructive to add then please do so, otherwise this discussion is over as it is going nowhere. Please stop vandalizing the article. I have given up on trying to correct the mess you've made of the 2021 Election article. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Asaturn (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article
Hello, I'm Asaturn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Urnas Abiertas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. This is the 2nd time I've asked you to stop blanking the good faith content. If you have an issue with the content, let's talk it over on the talk page. Asaturn (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat myself, you cannot use random social media and about pages as supposedly reliable sources to back up your biased claims that they are an anti-Nicaraguan group that supports terrorism. Bill Williams 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP's own Reliable Sources policy on sources, you can use social media to refer to the subject itself when ther social media is self-descriptive and run by the subject. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Please immediately stop vandalizing the article.  Asaturn (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I never once said they were a group that supports terrorism. Everything I said is cited by good sources per WP policy. Please stop vandalizing the article and please stop lying. Asaturn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't use their own description of themselves. You stated that they want to discredit the election as their goal, are composed of only two nicaraguans, support partisan right wingers, "claim to work for," and then mentioned random conspiracy theories about their connections to Europe and the U.S., all claims requiring reliable sources, of which you have 0.
 * "UCAB is directed by XXX, a conservative priest who openly supported the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt.[9]" you claimed they supported terrorists. You have repeatedly insulted me with no evidence while I have provided it repeatedly. Bill Williams 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your disruptive editing (blanking half of the page without cause) prevented me from saving before I could paste the template into the placeholder. The article has been updated with the correct information. Everything in the article is cited with good sources per WP Reliable Sources / Perennial sources. Asaturn (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They state in their presentation that their goal was to (direct quote) "discredit the country’s vote" and they called the vote (which had yet to even take place "an electoral farce." I would suggest you actually read the report, which comes directly from their own website. Asaturn (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They only discredited the vote after it was released and clearly completely false, which I already cited a dozen reliable sources proving Multiple sources:


 * , and once again you have cited no reliable sources for your conspiracy theories. I removed unsourced original research with no factual backing and replaced it with reliably sourced information. Stop bothering me on my talk page with your nonsense, you provided zero reliable sources whatsoever besides social media and the about pages of two articles, while I provided five reliable news articles, and I did not misquote my articles while you produced conspiracy theories nowhere mentioned on your supposed sources.
 * Your sources shown below are Twitter and LinkedIn and a complete rewrite, misquote, and alteration of two website about pages Bill Williams 10:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Their reports both came out weeks before the election. You are lying or totally misinformed. Please read the reports yourself. I cited the organization itself! I am not citing any "conspiracy theories!" I am not "bothering you" I am following Wikipedia policy and providing you with friendly warnings to stop vandalizing the page.
 * Every single one of my sources is either Urnas Abiertas itself or sources that meet Wikipedia's standards.
 * I directly quoted the sources. If you have better information then please improve the article. Erasing half the article because you don't like it is not an improvement and meets the criteria for vandalism and is absolutely inappropriate and unconstructive. Asaturn (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "This talk was organized by two individuals who claim to work for Urnas Abiertas" claim to work? That implies they are lying, and is clearly not a direct quote. "... both partisan right-wing activists" they called themselves that? Somehow I doubt anyone would refer to themselves that way. "...anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front activist" did he refer to himself that way? Somehow I doubt that was well. "their goal was to discredit the results in a presentation done in partnership with International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and Venezuelan right-wing activists" I also doubt they refer to their partners as "Venezuelan right-wing activists." You have no sources for your claims, only random links. Bill Williams 10:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer "allegedly work for?" I can change it to "work for" but people seemed to not like that before! They are cited on Wilson Center's website, LinkedIn, and in their own reports as working for Urnas Abiertas. The official website does not list them but the talk does. What do you want? You seem to be arguing to discredit the organization itself in an attempt to keep it anonymous. It seems like you know that the more legitimacy and information that is added, the less credible and more dubious their 18.5% claim sounds. The quote is taken from their report. The "right wing activists" is taken from articles on Wikipedia and quotes from their talk and their report. Everything is cited. This is your own POV not liking the facts, not an issue with anything I cited. Please add good constructive information (don't blank the article) — or move on. Asaturn (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Move on from my talk page. I have repeatedly disproven your nonsensical conspiracy theories with my own reliable sources, to which you respond with random links that do not relate at all to whta you are saying. Everything you just said is original research that you compiled from across the internet and is disputed by reliable sources. Bill Williams 10:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are unhinged and need to be banned from all of Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * DO NOT quote me as "per Bill Williams" as if I agreed to some change in the article. Every single fabric of your text is riddled with nonsense not backed by reliable sources, purely peddling conspiracy theories. Two random individuals from the organization giving a talk to a random think tank has absolutely no relevance to the 2021 Nicaraguan geneneral election being completely fabricated as shown by every reliable source. Bill Williams 10:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unhinged article vandalizer and formerly banned user who used to go by the name Bill Williams and has some beef with Nicaragua, as I have said numerous times, the sources are from Urnas Abiertas' own website. Are you claiming that isn't their website and that the CNN links etc are all false? If that's the case, it sounds like they are a dubious source and should be removed from 2021 Nicaraguan general election. Asaturn (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop annoying me with nonsense, you are babbling personal insults and conspiracy theories. This is my third time asking you to not spam. Bill Williams 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting you. Please let me know which source I cited is a "conspiracy theory." Asaturn (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally just called me unhinged and continue to post nonsense on my talk page when I told you to stop. My entire point is that YOU DIDN'T cite a source for your conspiracy theories. You added random links that had no relation to your claims of right-wing/anti-communist bias on behalf of the think tank, with your article stating ("both partisan right-wing activists.[6] Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera is an anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front activist "). NOT A SINGLE reliable source says anything about these "right-wing" people because they are irrelevant to the election observer, and you only added them to discredit the observer. Bill Williams 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have said many many many times, the sources included their website, their twitter, their linkedin profiles, their talks at Wilson Center, and their own reports. Everything I wrote in the article was taken from those sources. If you have a problem with those sources, then it sounds like you don't trust the organization you are using as the sole source for claims of Nicaragua's official results being a lie. The claims of "right wing" are taken from their own talks where they say that they are "activists" who are "anti-FSLN" and want to "discredit the election" and called the election an "electoral farce" weeks before a single vote was cast. It's in both the anonymous report and the non-anonymous report (PDF links) as well as in the video on their own blog page. Go look for yourself. You cannot claim that I am lying when you haven't even taken the time to look at the citations yourself. When the Urnas Abiertas workers introduce themselves, they are more than happy to trash-talk the Nicaraguan government (FSLN). It's in the sources! None of what I put in the article is my opinion or original research. I have never claimed that anyone is "anti-communist" and I have never claimed there's a "conspiracy." Asaturn (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now my fifth time asking you to back off. Stop bothering me on my talk page. I was actually CONSTRUCTIVELY EDITING AN ARIZONA ARTICLE before you made me WASTE MY TIME with this. YOU LITERALLY LINKED WHAT I PUT BELOW AS YOUR SOURCE AND IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION TO YOUR CLAIMS. If you supposedly have a source for your claims THEN ACTUALLY CITE IT. Bill Williams 11:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 11 citations in the article. There are 2 PDFs ("reports") as well as a video of their talk at Wilson Center (which is linked on their blog). All of the quotes and info from the article relating to their political ideologies and their mission come from these links, which are all on their own website. Asaturn (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * your three "sources" state ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "right-wing" or "anti-sardanista" AND YET YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT THEY DO. Get off my talk page. Bill Williams 11:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are playing dumb. I know you are smarter than this. I have said 4 or 5 times that the PDFs (their "reports") cite that they wanted to "discredit the election." Their "talk" at Wilson Center (the video linked in their blog) they are very up-front about their political ideologies and also say the upcoming election "is a farce" (before a vote was cast). The report that isn't 4 pages and totally anonymous actually provides some detail, that's where the info about the Catholic university (Universidad Católica Andrés Bello (UCAB)) came in -- those individuals also admit they are right-wing "conservative activists." You have clearly not even looked at the sources if you are playing a game of looking at LinkedIn. Asaturn (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Your three "sources"" - Bill, there are 11 total sources cited in the article. You are ignoring the ones that you don't like. I am done here. Please do not edit the article again unless you have something constructive to add. Asaturn (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked the homepage of various things. NOT A SINGLE TIME did you link the "talk" that you are mentioning. Of course I did not look through their LinkedIn. The burden is upon YOU to provide me with the SOURCE to your claims, not some random linkedin page that I have to click through six different times. Bill Williams 11:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "talk" is the first link on their blog, as I have said many times. This is the link to their blog: https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/
 * If you click on that link, it will bring up a website called "Urnas Abiertas." This is the official website of the sole source for the claim of Nicaragua's 2021 general election being a "sham."
 * On this page, you will see a box that says "ver" which means "watch." If you click this you will be taken to their talk where they say all of the things I cited in the article. The direct link for the talk is here: https://urnasabiertas.com/lanzamiento-del-informe-nicaragua-elecciones-2021-un-plan-doloso-para-acabar-con-la-democracia/
 * On that page you will see an embedded video of their talk just below a slide which shows their association with Wilson Center, International Idea, UCAB, etc (as I mentioned in the article). If you scroll down to the embedded video you can click the play button, which looks like a box with a triangle in it. This will cause the video to begin to play. This playing video is the talk I have referenced a dozen times but for some reason you have been unable to find. Please let me know if you are still confused. Asaturn (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The confused one is the person who is still commenting on my talk page after being asked seven times, at least, to back off. Your claim is completely false, where you stated that "This is the official website of the sole source for the claim of Nicaragua's 2021 general election being a "sham."" even though I listed numerous other sources for this, which I will copy and paste again Multiple sources:
 * You linked the homepage of various things. NOT A SINGLE TIME did you link the "talk" that you are mentioning. Of course I did not look through their LinkedIn. The burden is upon YOU to provide me with the SOURCE to your claims, not some random linkedin page that I have to click through six different times. Bill Williams 11:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "talk" is the first link on their blog, as I have said many times. This is the link to their blog: https://urnasabiertas.com/blog/
 * If you click on that link, it will bring up a website called "Urnas Abiertas." This is the official website of the sole source for the claim of Nicaragua's 2021 general election being a "sham."
 * On this page, you will see a box that says "ver" which means "watch." If you click this you will be taken to their talk where they say all of the things I cited in the article. The direct link for the talk is here: https://urnasabiertas.com/lanzamiento-del-informe-nicaragua-elecciones-2021-un-plan-doloso-para-acabar-con-la-democracia/
 * On that page you will see an embedded video of their talk just below a slide which shows their association with Wilson Center, International Idea, UCAB, etc (as I mentioned in the article). If you scroll down to the embedded video you can click the play button, which looks like a box with a triangle in it. This will cause the video to begin to play. This playing video is the talk I have referenced a dozen times but for some reason you have been unable to find. Please let me know if you are still confused. Asaturn (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The confused one is the person who is still commenting on my talk page after being asked seven times, at least, to back off. Your claim is completely false, where you stated that "This is the official website of the sole source for the claim of Nicaragua's 2021 general election being a "sham."" even though I listed numerous other sources for this, which I will copy and paste again Multiple sources:


 * Bill Williams 11:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading nonsense on my talk page, as I have asked six times now, and find your supposed sources. Bill Williams 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  You aren't the empresario of Wikipedia. I have followed the rules. You have not. Please stop wasting my time and please stop making me feel unwelcome and unsafe. This is beyond inappropriate. I am no longer responding to any of your messages. Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)  Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is against Wikipedia rules to repeatedly harass a user on their talk page if they have asked you not to. Stop arguing with me here. Bill Williams 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill Williams 11:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading nonsense on my talk page, as I have asked six times now, and find your supposed sources. Bill Williams 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  You aren't the empresario of Wikipedia. I have followed the rules. You have not. Please stop wasting my time and please stop making me feel unwelcome and unsafe. This is beyond inappropriate. I am no longer responding to any of your messages. Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)  Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is against Wikipedia rules to repeatedly harass a user on their talk page if they have asked you not to. Stop arguing with me here. Bill Williams 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  You aren't the empresario of Wikipedia. I have followed the rules. You have not. Please stop wasting my time and please stop making me feel unwelcome and unsafe. This is beyond inappropriate. I am no longer responding to any of your messages. Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)  Asaturn (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is against Wikipedia rules to repeatedly harass a user on their talk page if they have asked you not to. Stop arguing with me here. Bill Williams 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Build Back Better Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coronavirus relief bill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nicaraguan election
Hello! I was one of the editors of 2021 Nicaraguan general election and I was angry that "that" user decided to dynamite it to fit his ideology. I just realized that you had some problems with him and I want to tell you that I regret that it led to you receiving disrespect from that user. It's unfair. Thank God he has been blocked! I've also seen that you and other users have been fixing the article...great! I have been very inactive for several days so I've not been very willing to collaborate with the "reconstruction" of the same. Thank goodness that at the end there are people with good faith in Wikipedia. Best regards! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot, I appreciate it. If you check Archive 2 of this talk page, you can see what kind of stuff he said to me repeatedly. He was harassing me across the Wiki and only stopped when he was blocked. Thankfully the article is now in good hands since the other editors actually reached consensus instead of repeatedly reverting others like Asaturn did. Bill Williams 18:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Wall Street Journal
Your recent editing history 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added something, you reverted me, and I reverted you a single time. The last set of edits from me on this article was a month ago. Even a one revert rule, if it were on this article, would not have been violated. Bill Williams 23:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kenosha unrest shooting
Your recent editing history 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. Cedar777 (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"You have repeatedly argued without any justification"
is a personal attack. soibangla (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grow up, you accused a child of numerous things and now can't take a factual statement on your behavior? What is your justification for including an inaccurate term in the lead of an article? Does Gosar hate gay people, black people, Jews, etc. or anything else that could be described as far-right? No, it is a BLP violation to shove that a few words into the article when only a few sources refer to him that way, and we already have an accurate description of his views on various issues, including abortion, the ACA, gun control etc. and do not need an inaccurate "far-right" label as well. it belongs in the body, not the lead. Bill Williams 20:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "HAHAHA" and "you're wrong" are not very constructive things to be saying to an editor attempting to improve an article. Bill Williams 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you bearing a vendetta about that? And you say I should grow up? soibangla (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You came to my talk page to whine about the fact that you disagree with me on an article, and after immaturely arguing with me (laughing and calling me wrong and calling me disruptive instead of legitimately debating), you now have decided to accuse me of personally attacking you. That's a serious accusation, do you have any evidence of that whatsoever? Otherwise, please get your "vendetta" off this talk page. Bill Williams 20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact what happened here is that you falsely said I repeatedly argue without justification, thus taking this to a personal level rather a mere disagreement. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is personal about that? I have no issue with you personally, as you could be over twice my age and it would make no difference to me. I simply disagree with the fact that "far-right" is in the article lead, and again you have provided no justification for how that is appropriate for BLP to put it a few words into the article when the hyperlink to the far-right article would then imply Gosar is a Nazi... That is why it only belongs in the body, since there you can explain more in detail who referred to him, exactly what they said, and why they called him that. Bill Williams 21:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Grow up," you say? Keep talkin' soibangla (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you tried to scream through a computer screen at me in all caps and bold while accusing me of disruptive editing. I only used all caps when I didn't know how to bold things, you did both at the same time while personally insulting me. Please refrain from coming to my talk page to accuse me of things that I have never engaged in. I made one set of edits, was partially reverted, and then partially restored my edits in a different way that complied more with consensus. Unless there is some zero revert rule on the article that I am unaware of, I broke no rules, yet you accused me of "disruptive editing" repeatedly. Bill Williams 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello, I'm Vacant0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, José Antonio Kast, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I will not revert your edit for now but "right-wing" isn't sourced in Kast's article. If there are any reliable sources describing him as "right-wing" (not "far-right") then feel free to add it because I wasn't able to find any. Most of the sources that I have found reference him as a "far-right" or "ultraconservative" candidate. --Vacant0 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? I provided four reliable sources, please do not revert that with a nonsensical reason. Bill Williams 01:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Multiple sources for right-wing:
 * Miranda, Natalia A. Ramos (2021-11-01). "Chile right-wing Kast gains edge in polls as presidential vote nears". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
 * "Will an ultra-conservative be Chile's next president?". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
 * Quinn, Colm. "Chile Prepares to Choose a New Direction". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
 * "Chile's Pinera Survives Impeachment Motion on Pandora Papers". Bloomberg | bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2021-11-24."
 * This is literally cited at the end of the sentence in the article... Bill Williams 01:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "ultraconservative" is not equivalent to far-right unless the reliable source says so. Far-right is a much more extreme term that basically means a Nazi and is nonsensically applied by sources without any real justification, but multiple sources have referred to Kast as right wing. Bill Williams 01:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting but that's my problem that I haven't seen them. If you don't mind, I recommend moving the sources up a bit, on the right side of the descriptors, just for the sake of not this happening again. I will of course not revert anything since it was already there and I'm totally fine with it, it was just that I didn't see the bulleted sources until you've told me. --Vacant0 (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah I am sorry for the confusion, thank you for letting me know. Bill Williams 04:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on bludgeoning
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion
Concerning the discussion at Donald Trump. I wonder if it might be best, if you got things cleared up at WP:ANI first. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah I am sorry, I noticed the part of the Trump article and thought I would edit it, but you are right that I should probably avoid it right now. Bill Williams 05:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you should consider stepping away from the Trump and Brian Kemp bios articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the Donald Trump issue is more minor to be honest, and I'm fine waiting for other editors to chime in later. The Kemp article has two extremely misleading statements in the lead, i.e. that he refused to resign as Secretary of State, one of the only three offices he held, but does not mention how he then resigned a week later. Additionally, it states that the bill he signed "limits voting rights" which makes him sound like a fascist and clearly violates BLP of being unsourced, as I linked on the talk page, the vast majority of articles that describe the bill simply list its policies and never say that it "limits voting rights." Bill Williams 03:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Be careful, that you're not trying editors patients. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not want to cause any trouble, but it is trouble if there is a BLP violation accusing someone of something that is unsourced and undue. Bill Williams 03:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Though understandable...
I've found that trying to be as level headed as possible really is helpful. I feel like I used to be a lot more willing to say "call a spade a spade". However, I've seen editors get burned for things like that. A while back I was reported for battleground behavior. What saved me was that I didn't actually do the thing I was accused of. I think the feelings of the other accused editors was understandable but expressing it makes it too easy for those who object to your views to then say, "they are a problem editor and should be topic blocked". I'm sure in some cases the real motive behind reporting an editor for something like BATTLEGROUND is to silence an opposing view but it can be effective. Anyway, it's always best to keep one's nose extra clean just in case. Happy editing! Springee (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I use reliable sources to add important info or remove undue, misrepresentative, or false claims in articles, especially in the lead. This garners opposition from a number of partisan editors, but either way I will continue to improve the Wiki, and I am happy to edit articles irrelevant to these partisan biases, but unfortunately I keep being dragged back into these disputes. I still try to discuss things on the talk page instead of edit warring like I did years ago, but these discussions on talk pages quickly devolve into pointless arguments. It is unfortunate, but that's how things are for me. Bill Williams 21:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you have a pending ANI matter, I find the timing of the edit you just made to Paul Gosar to be quite peculiar, since you know we tangled on that extensively. If I had a pending ANI matter, I'd try to lay low for a while and not try to stir stuff up. But you do what you think is best for yourself. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the matter is of high importance when it is an improperly weighted BLP violation in the lead of a controversial politician's article that has a thousand views per day. The far-right article's entire lead is almost exclusively describing Nazi positions like fascism, racism, homophobia, authoritarianism, etc. Adding a hyperlink to the far-right article a few sentences into the lead of Gosar's article just makes readers think that these are his positions, none of which have been used a lot by reliable sources to describe him. There is absolutely no benefit to readers by adding "far-right" to the lead when his actual positions are stated there already. I know some sources refer to him as far-right, which is why I put it under political positions in the body, but it belongs in the body because readers who go down to that part of the article have additional explanation on his actual positions instead of being lead to thinking he's a Nazi. For example, the only other Representative with "far-right" immediately in the lead is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who reliable sources actually describe as being racist and antisemitic. Bill Williams 23:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Last word
I would suggest retracting your ANI statement. I think you have confused two different IP editors. Regardless, the complaint went no where so just let it die. Springee (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor should be blocked for repeatedly personally attacking me without any justification. If they continue to do so, I will continue to respond and ask them not to personally attack me. If it was multiple IPs, then block multiple IPs. It is insane to me that IPs can get away with repeated personal attacks that clearly violate the rules of Wikipedia. Bill Williams 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can distinguish IP address location by hitting "geolocate" on the IP userpage. What Springee means is that there were two different editors, one that did not attack you (me). Just be aware of how you come across if you say "block them all" (I'm assuming you weren't aware and I apologize for partaking in the discussion with a confusing series of IP addresses and will probably make an account at some point). I was the IP just asking for people to calm down (an LA-based VZW IP). If someone from an IP address in, say, Alaska posts within hours of me, it's probably a different editor. I agree personal attacks are bad and I don't condone them; I only condone cordiality on here. I would also condone retracting the statement, but I'm not confused about who it was directed toward. But if you conflated my post with another's, I can see how my words could be construed to be disingenuous or trolling. No, I was genuinely begging for people to be civil...have a GREAT day. 2600:1012:B00B:8F38:7057:8038:50CC:5043 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah my bad, I was saying that the other IP personally attacked me repeatedly, not you. And I wasn't saying you should be blocked, I meant that one IP editor was using multiple different IPs at some points, all of which should be blocked if he's one person. My apologies for confusing him with you. Bill Williams 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Map needed
Hi there, I see you know how to work with maps. I'd like this map to use at the John Beargrease article I've been working on. Beargrease delivered mail by rowboat or dogsled all the way up to Grand Marais and sometimes continued on up to Grand Portage once a week. I think it would add a lot to the article to see just how far this is. I will use it in the marathon article as well when I start to work on it. Hope to hear from you soon. I put you on my Watch list so you can answer me here. Sectionworker (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I can help you with that Face-smile.svg. What specifically would you like me to detail on the map, and what should I incorporate from the image you provided? Bill Williams 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I never dreamed it could be so fast and easy.  The map is fine as is.  Will you deposit it at the Commons pages?  Sectionworker (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can work on it when I get home, but I think I'll have to make a separate map based on uncopyrighted material on Wikipedia, since that map looks to be copyrighted material of "Cindy" on that website as stated by "I hold the copyright to material on this blog" on the homepage. Bill Williams 14:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK,in that case I will look at the map and suggest some changes.  I'll do some research and get back to  you in a few hours. Sectionworker (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked at a bunch of web stuff and at several articles we've got here. It's a great little map for someone that wants to travel the north shore and camp along the way but not useful as is for any of our articles, including the John Beargrease marathon article, that I want to work on. That race runs mostly inland and even changes from year to year when there is not enough snow in some areas.  But it will work well with the bio for Beargrease because I know that all of the first settlements above Silverbay were on the coast because Lake Superior was their only method of transporting their  fishing, lumber, and fur pelt businesses and their needs to import foods such as flour, etc.  Traveling inland or by sea in a rowboat, the Beargrease family was their only connection for news from the outside world.  Imagine that!  So it seems that only the coastal towns need to on the map. What do you think?  Sectionworker (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Stacey Abrams
Your recent editing history 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to inform you, but you reverted me, so I reverted you back and added numerous reliable sources, so a single revert violates no Wikipedia rules. Please read the sources provided instead of inserting your personal opinion on the matter. Bill Williams 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Assault weapon seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You definitely should not be making false claims about the content of articles to justify POV additions to an article lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I cited a source and you cited none, do not accuse me of making false claims when you are disagreeing with sourced, expert opinion and are therefore wrong. Bill Williams 05:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Assault weapon 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. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted you two different times with two different additions to try to get something less controversial, which is not in any way a violation of Wikipedia rules. You reverted me three times because you personally disagreed with sourced, expert opinions on the matter. Bill Williams 06:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring: "The term 'revert' is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually." – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your point? I made a normal edit to the article, you reverted me, I reinstated my edit, you reverted me, then I reinstated my edit slightly differently, and you reverted me a third time. Bill Williams 06:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Israel Palestine
Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Illegal immigration to the United States
As far as I can tell, the page is covered by the following editing restrictions. You should self-revert this edit and otherwise comply with WP:BRD. Furthermore, it's incorrect to state that illegal immigration itself is a crime – it's purely your own original research. Your decision to edit-war your original research into the lead is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That was two years ago, and I see no indication at the top of the talk page that there is a 1RR anywhere. I made a single revert to your edit, so I am not going to change anything I did, and I opened a discussion on the talk page. "it's incorrect to state that illegal immigration itself is a crime" that is a complete contradiction, it is a federal crime to illegally enter the U.S., as clearly stated by illegal immigration. I have no clue how it could be legal to do something illegal, but in this case it obviously isn't. Bill Williams 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That source does not say that illegal immigration is a crime – this is precisely why WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not allowed. We have countless sources in the article that specifically examine the relationship between illegal immigration and crime, and they do not highlight that illegal immigration is a crime in itself. Past discussions on the talk page show no consensus for adding that to the lead. Edit-warring it into the lead of all places is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the source, and what multiple sources am I supposedly synthesizing? Illegal entry is a crime, illegal entry is illegal immigration. While many illegal immigrants have committed a crime, i.e. illegally entering the U.S. in the first place, besides unauthorized entry they commit less crime than Americans. Bill Williams 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Oath Keepers
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oath Keepers. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Myotus (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Another editor removed your false information, yet you added it back anyway. Please gain consensus to put such claims in the lead, because currently you do not have any. Bill Williams 18:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:NorthBySouthBaranof made the arguement that it was not clear that it is a personal view or an organization. It was me that removed Rhodes from the top section. I moved him to the Organizational history since it fit better there (the top section is about the organization not the individuals in the organization), I also added a sentence on Citizen Preservation teams since it was what Southern Poverty Law Center was referring too.Myotus (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And also a reminder, it was not "my false information" in the intro- that was written by someone else. I agreed with you that there were issues and wanted to work on them to reprove the section rather than just delete the good with the bad but you refused to any changes other than deleting or work with others to improve the writing/content in the section. Myotus (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And yet another reminder, NorthBySouthBaranof did leave much of their original reverts of your deletes in place. Again, the content in question may need work but you go right to trying to delete / requesting that they delete them. Myotus (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please perform constructive edits
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian enclaves
I asked you before not to make potentially controversial edits at this page without discussing them in the talk page first mainly because the article is half way through a GA review. The article has had plenty of eyes on it and people have not taken objection to the things you find objectionable, what does "notable for the lead" even mean?. I am going to revert your changes not because I necessarily disagree with the thrust of them but because I feel you are just being pointy in your editing, it appears you are just removing things that you don't like, no consideration being given even as to whether material might be better relocated in the article rather than just removed.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

CDP University Park, Florida?
Hi there, I have a question. Is University Park any longer a CDP? As far as I can see, there is no Census data for 2020. Has the place merged with another one for Census purposes? Thank you in advance for your reply. Regards, Dionysos1988 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked into it a bit, this tells you information on University Park CDP based on the American Community Survey estimates and the 2010 US Census, but nothing about the 2020 US Census. Comparing the map with the University Park CDP on it with the current 2020 map on the website, it looks to be completely absorbed by the Westchester CDP  . The data on the Westchester CDP can be found here  and if you check the tables, you can see 2020 Census information on it. Hope his helps Bill Williams 15:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lebanon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Much appreciated JJNito197 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The article had false information, which I removed. Lebanon does not have a coat of arms, so like Turkey, one should not be displayed in the article. Bill Williams 23:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up since you placed the RfC
I've opened a discussion related to the close. Springee (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree that it was not the right decision made. Bill Williams 00:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Consistency in American politicans
Howdy. Yeahs it can be a headache. Biden & Pelosi are self-proclaimed devout Catholics & yet they both support abortion rights. H.Clinton said 'support women' in politics & yet she supported Cuomo over Nixon in the 2018 NY Democratic primary (eventually, NY did end up with a woman governor). Ted Cruz, hated Trump's guts during the 2016 campaign, then later praises him & supports his attempts to deny certification of 'enough' of Biden's electoral votes. Whatcha gonna do? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence is my point, the label "far-right" cannot be given based on Catholicism clearly, and religious people in general are of course subjective in Congress based on how they define themselves, but shouldn't be automatically considered "far-right" as that would include many left-wing Democrats. Bill Williams 20:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NPA
Kindly refrain from any further personal attacks as at the Jerusalem article talk page, "your insane bias" and "your nonsensical propaganda" refers. WP:AVOIDYOU. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a personal attack, I simply stated a fact. You were babbling about my "crap" so kindly refrain from acting like you have moral high ground. All you do on pages relating to Israel is repeatedly rant about how evil you think it is. Thank you and stay off my talk page. Bill Williams 12:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to stay off your talk page once I correct a couple things for the record.
 * other crap exists is what I said = WP:OCE.
 * All you do on pages relating to Israel is repeatedly rant about how evil you think it is False. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The only one endorsing war crimes is the Hezbollah supporter who enjoys watching terrorists bomb innocent people. is a personal attack worthy of an immediate block. Cut that shit out. The "oh, but it's a fact" defense is bullshit, and you should be ashamed of doubling down like that. Anything else like that and I'll be going to AE seeking a topic ban, and I wouldn't be surprised if a patrolling admin topic banned you without going through all that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Get away from my talk page, as I already requested (to Selfstudier), I am not interested in arguing, all I did was state what edits you make. As for ScottishFinnishRadish, I stated what Nableezy has in his infobox. Instead of ranting about "shit" and "bullshit" and "you should be ashamed" and threatening ro report me, click on his infobox, and stay away from my talk page. Bill Williams 21:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize to for stating that you have "insane bias" as that was not necessary and I should not have used the word "insane." I still think that you have far too much bias against Israel to be constantly editing its article, however. Bill Williams 22:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Im going to give you a bit to refactor your comment to me before I report it to AE.  nableezy  - 14:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Im removing your personal attack. If you restore it then we can deal with it then. Im not sure why you lashed out at me, cant recall an instance in which you and I had any issue whatsoever. But that was an outrageous attack, and Ill chalk it up to being out of character frustration with a topic area that can make people get more heated than they should.  nableezy  - 14:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a personal attack, Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization, and you have a userbox saying you support it. You accused me of pushing propaganda for "Israeli war crimes," so please back off my talk page instead of being a self-righteous instigator. Bill Williams 21:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither parts of that are true, I didnt accuse you of anything, and I do not have a userbox that says I support any individual or group. Try reading carefully, it may help. I said unless youd like others to talk about your bias you should refrain from discussing others. If you repeat your slur on a talk page again, or remove the rpa template I placed, we can see how AE feels about it.  nableezy  - 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I should not have said the part about "bombing innocent people," and I apologize for that, I was referring to Hezbollah's actions but I should not have said you support them. I apologize for accusing you of supporting those specific actions by Hezbollah. The word Hezbollah is not a slur, and your talk page links to the discussion where you stated your support for Hezbollah in your userbox . You accused me of supporting war crimes, stating "And unless you would like somebody to discuss your insane bias that allows you to have Wikipedia endorse war crimes..." and never apologized. I am sorry for levying accusations of bias, but instead of threatening me and accusing me of supporting war crimes, please leave my talk page as I already requested, and stop arguing with me about my statement of what is in your userbox. Bill Williams 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstood my point entirely. What I said was, because you said of another editor that they have an insane bias because they disagree with you, that unless you want somebody to make the accusation to you of the same you should refrain of doing so. I was not, and am not, saying you have an insane bias. I was not accusing you of supporting war crimes. It was saying unless you would like somebody else to throw the same accusations at you to keep them out of your comments. And if you are unable to read the userbox I cant help you, but Hezbollah is neither named nor linked. I also dont appear anywhere in the linked discussion either. You seriously misunderstand all parts of this, but I havent made any statement in support of Hezbollah, or any other group that I can think of besides maybe the Chicago Blackhawks, on Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 21:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought because the discussion involved Hezbollah that is what you meant that you supported. My apologies, I understand what you're saying, that you support other groups or individuals and did not name any one specifically. Regardless, you still accused me of supporting Israeli war crimes when all I said is that another editor had "insane bias," I should not have used the word "insane," but either way I still believe they have a high level of bias. You are still defending your accusation of me supporting war crimes by saying "unless you would like somebody else to throw the same accusations" what I said does not necessitate you stating I support war crimes. Bill Williams 21:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not defending it, Im saying it never happened. Please see the comment at the end of the section, you misread my intent in my comment. I am sorry for being unclear.  nableezy  - 21:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah my bad, I see your point. To be honest I quickly got sick of editing that page very soon after, because the discussions are far too heated and argumentative constantly to be reasonably civil. I should not have accused anyone of things however, that was my bad. Bill Williams 22:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Alls well that ends well, we all good? I am sorry for my wording as well, and yes I prefer things to be less heated, and honestly in the limited interactions Ive had with you have seen you as having a particular POV but a perfectly capable editor and one that I could work with. I hope that you see me as the same and that we can return to that happy state.  nableezy  - 22:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry about the accusations, and thanks for clearing things up. I do not have a particular POV in support of Israel if that is what you mean, in fact I fully support the two-state solution (although maybe three states as I think Gaza should also be independent as it does not seem to be able to functionally operate with Hamas conflicting with the PA) and think Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem and its numerous settlements in the West Bank are absurd and harmful to the people and the peace process, while Israel would bring great benefit to the Palestinians throughout the Levant by paying to help resettle many of them in the West Bank in place of its own settlers. However, for articles in general, I tend to prefer consistency, such as between Jerusalem and other disputed cities. And yeah, I might edit the article in the future, but not that much, as those discussions are too aggressive and I do not want to become involved in that very much. Bill Williams 22:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I think everybody has a particular POV, the important part is how we edit. Take care, and hope you do come back to the article more often.  nableezy  - 22:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Bill, please be careful with your statements. The Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization by the United States,, Australian, European Union, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, and their members Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, as well as Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Germany, Honduras, Israel, Kosovo, Lithuania, Malaysia, Paraguay, Serbia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, and Guatemala. However, you need to be careful about what you say about other users, in particular when their statements may be open for multiple interpretations. I recommend you avoid statements about other users, just address their arguements. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He said I had " And unless you would like somebody to discuss your insane bias that allows you to have Wikipedia endorse war crimes" therefore accusing me of supporting Israeli war crimes when all I said is a city should state its official mayor and symbols used, while he has a userbox advertising his support for a terrorist organization that blows up innocent civilians. A statement of fact is not a personal attack, I simply pointed out the irony of his statement. Bill Williams 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was quoting your accusation of insane bias against another editor, saying unless you would like people to discuss what they feel your bias is then you shouldnt discuss what you feel others bias is. Your therefore is as faulty as the rest of your statement. Repeat that slur once more and AE is where we go. Have a nice day, and Ill bid your talk page farewell, but if you think you can discuss me here while denying me a response you have that as confused as you do the rest of this.  nableezy  - 21:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the accusation of bias, that was unnecessary, but accusing me of supporting war crimes was completely unnecessary on your part. I also did not intend to state a slur, I was referring to Hezbollah's actions, but should not have stated that you support them. My apologies for that. Bill Williams 21:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bill, let me state very clearly, I am not accusing you of that. I did not accuse you of that. I dont have any reason to believe that of you. That was not my point at all. I am sorry if my wording was unclear. It was merely a do unto others remark about your comment to another editor.  nableezy  - 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry this is happening to you, Bill. I know it's frustrating and concerning. I trust the admin corps here will do everything they can within the limits of what is permissible and you are keeping the right groups updated. I believe our community has a responsibility to stand with those in good standing within our community that are facing such vile and offensive harassment for their edits. -- A Rose Wolf  13:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo what ARoseWolf says above. I'm sorry you have to suffer through this crap. I am watching this page, and will intervene if no one else has done so already. - Donald Albury 16:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Echoing further, wish this wasnt a thing anybody had to deal with for volunteering at an encyclopedia.  nableezy  - 16:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support guys, whether it is some pro-Israel or anti-Israel editor, it's pretty pathetic how they have made so many accounts and used so many IPs just to harass people for a single vote we participated in once. I just hope whoever they are that their sockpuppetting is blocked at some point. Bill Williams 17:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Awaiting verification quotes
Just to remind you that verification quotes are awaited for cites added to lead at State of Palestine. I have already marked one as fv. Please take this as an official complaint because by my count you have added at least 5 cites that failed verification. I would not like to see any repetition. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't added a single thing that "failed verification," please don't assume everyone edits Wikipedia for 23 hours per day and then selectively chooses to add false things and then ignore your requests. I will get to what you're asking for. Bill Williams 12:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you did make this revert within 10 minutes of my edit so I thought, since you are around, I would prompt you in the matter of the quotes. Obviously you only had time for the revert. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that I am not editing Wikipedia constantly and choosing to ignore you. I did not see your request for quotes on those citations, or I would have dealt with them immediately. I'm sorry for making you wait, but I don't appreciate talk of "official complaint" and the tone of "I would not like to see any repetition." I can't immediately notice and respond to everything. Bill Williams 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And I got off of Wikipedia after editing that article, it's not that I "obviously I only had time for the revert," I simply was not on Wikipedia after editing that article and therefore couldn't respond. Bill Williams 13:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

1RR
You're right on the edge of a 1RR violation with your edits at 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation, waiting 2 minutes after 24 hours is typically seen as gaming. Additionally, removing tags requires consensus, not edit-warring. Im not going to report the gaming issue, but please dont keep trying to skirt the line in this way.  nableezy  - 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited yesterday, and I was a day later today. There is no gaming anything, it was over a day later. I edit at the same time each day, and I did not edit war, I simply provided numerous sources for a clear claim. Bill Williams 17:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed the tag twice, 24 hours and 2 minutes apart. 13:08 8 Sept, 13:10 9 Sept.  nableezy  - 17:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that wasn't some intentional ploy, I simply log in at the same time each day approximately so I assumed it was the next day and I could edit the page again after noticing I was reverted. Bill Williams 12:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The revert that I referred to above was made at 17:37 then clearly you do not log in only at the same time each day. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When did I say that I log in at the exact same time every single day? Can you stop babbling nonsensical accusations and stay of my talk page if you're going to to so? The edits were at the same time on following days because I decided to log in around the same time the next day. That does not mean I log in every single day of the year, it means that I logged in around the same time on two different days. Bill Williams 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply log in at the same time each day approximately is where you said it, prompting my response. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need to justify dumb accusations, there are many days when I log in approximately from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m., which I what I was referring to. Feel free to look through my edit contributions in the past few weeks. I never said that every edit I make is from that time period, while you claimed "then clearly you do not log in only at the same time each day" even though I never made that claim myself. Logging in around the same time each day does not mean I never log in at any other time that day. Bill Williams 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bill I dont think it was purposeful or a ploy, Im just reminding you to be mindful of it. Thats all,  nableezy  - 02:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm sorry for editing like that, I'll pay more attention to the times and try not to edit that close to a day later. Bill Williams 12:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

antifa
I was interested on your comments on antifa. Of course most of their activities are non-violent. The same is true about any violent organization. Even violent people sleep one third of their lives and spend a lot of time awake eating, exercising or engaging in other non-violent activities. ~ TFD (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it's highly misleading to claim that "most of their actions" are nonviolent. Their most significant rallies mostly turn into violence, and that is what matters most for the purpose of the article, because some rally of 10 people being completely peaceful is not something substantial relating to Antifa, while dozens of counter-protesters engaging in a brawl is clearly more relevant. It's about as relevant as saying "Most of Ted Bundy's actions were nonviolent," but that's absurd because his most relevant actions to his article are the violence he enacted. Bill Williams

Edit warring at Stacey Abrams
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * There is no edit war, I instituted an edit, you reverted me, and I reinstituted my edit because it is the precisely what the sources state and the most accurate representation. You can revert me again and discuss it on the talk page. If you have a disagreement with the four separate sources, then please explain it. Bill Williams 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Something may be difficult to prove, but the point is she claimed she was correct and had no evidence, so she had no evidence. Did she have evidence? Bill Williams 02:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You've gotten your warning. Your edit warring has been noted by other editors. If you make any further disruptive edits to the article and if you fail to use the talk page, you will very likely be banned. SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no edit warring, the other editor and yourself are the ones who deleted the current content and replaced it with something contentious. There is no two revert rule on the article, and I suggest you consult the sources before implementing controversial wording that myself and three others objected to. Bill Williams 12:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to your own logic, you edit warred on the IRA, considering I implemented one edit and then reverted one edit on Stacey Abrams, while you also changed the content of IRA in a way people disagreed with, then reimplemented your edit regardless. Bill Williams 12:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
You need to stop repeating your edits after they've been challenged by reversion. On many articles, your content additions, wording, and framing are not NPOV. If you continue this, you may be banned from American Politics.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have never stated how a single one of my edits is NPOV. If you revert me and I reinstate my edit in a manner which I believe is better than the previous edit, that doesn't break a single rule. Please refer to any time I've violated 3RR or 1RR in a dispute with you. You claimed "generally agree" was weasel words so instead I added "most experts state" which is what five separate sources are claiming. You did not provide any reliable sources to oppose what I added. Bill Williams 03:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also find it ironic how you reinstated your edit on the exact same page  immediately after being reverted. Bill Williams 03:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Content that misrepresents the source will be removed. Edit-warring will get you banned. Your opinions will not change either of those.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of threatening me for things that you did on the very same article, read through the five separate sources which I provided, all of which clearly describe how you are wrong. Bill Williams 13:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't make undocumented WP:ASPERSIONS like that. You are just making things worse for yourself. Warnings are not threats. They are site practice to give editors a chance to improve their behavior so that they (you) can avoid getting blocked.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right that's my bad, I misinterpreted you as claiming you were going to get me blocked. Still, I don't need your warnings, because you did the exact same thing as me, and yet you're on my talk page complaining about reverts. Bill Williams 19:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? No, I did not act like you and yes, you may be reported to enforcement any time you act that way -- reported by anyone who sees your behavior.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I already said I understand your point, but you did the exact same thing. You made a revert, someone else reverted you, and then you reverted them in response. That is the only thing you have accused me of doing wrong, so please stop repeating that on my talk page and leave me alone. Bill Williams 19:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But to clarify, I will refrain from reinstating my edits in the exact same form if someone reverts them, until I have gained consensus on the talk page. That was a mistake on my part. Bill Williams 19:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You state: I will refrain from reinstating my edits in the exact same form if someone reverts them ... That is not enough. Please note that the policy at Edit warring states: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Best to not edit the page at all until the dispute is resolved. - Donald Albury 19:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know that, and I apologize for misinterpreting the rules. I will not edit the page and will stick to discussing the issue on the talk page. Bill Williams 19:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb, which I will admit it took me many years to reach, is, if I think an edit reduces the quality of the article enough, I will revert. If someone reverts my edit, and I feel the issue is important enough, I will start a talk page discussion. Unless the edit is clearcut vandalism, a copyright violation, a blp violation, or something else that, by policy, cannot be allowed to stay in the article, I will not revert after the first time. If the edit really does not belong, hopefully another editor will come along and deal with it. Donald Albury 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think that's a reasonable point of view, I'll keep that in mind. Bill Williams 21:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is insane that you would not even interact with me a single time on any article talk page nor my own talk page before going straight to ask administrators to block me for something that you never even complained to me about. I would like you to tell me specifically what issue you have with me and why it urgently necessitates an administrator. Bill Williams 21:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Telling an editor who reverted you with a clear reason in the edit summary that they reverted without justification looks like a personal attacck
As you did at Talk:Oath Keepers Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a personal attack, I simply stated that the editor didn't provide any evidence of the claim in the lead, because the editor didn't provide any evidence of the specific claims that the Oath Keepers leadership support Sovereign Citizens, Posse Comitatus, or that they chiefly believe that sheriffs are the highest authorities in the land. I reviewed through the sources and they never specifically state this in relation to the Oath Keepers anywhere, and that's all I said to the editor. Bill Williams 16:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's been over a week and still nobody provided a single quote from any of the "sources" that backs up any of the content I removed, which is because that content isn't even related to the sources. Bill Williams 22:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The material that was replaced I presume you mean. It doesn't say that the leadership support anything. Why should anyone find sources about the leadership? Doug Weller  talk 13:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead is false, the "leadership" wording wasn't the only issue. It states that "the group... espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen and Posse Comitatus movements, chiefly, that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States." The sources state that literally one person in the Oath Keepers espouses these beliefs, how in the world does that make it DUE for the lead? This information isn't even in the body of the article because it's so minor. Bill Williams 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I just stated on the talk page, it's absurd to mislead readers about the beliefs of a dangerous group and lead them to focusing on something that the sources state a single person believes. This content isn't even mentioned in the body one single time, how in the world is it summarized in the lead if it doesn't even exist in the rest of the article? Bill Williams 23:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

personal attacks
Yes, it is a personal attack. To say I am targeting something is both untrue and negative and incivil. Seriously, if I have to continue seeing you respond to my comments with comments not about what I say but me instead I will go to AE. I have treated you incredibly fairly, including when you made attacks which you later admitted was based on just not understanding what I wrote. So, for the final time, comment on content, not on the contributor. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that the standards you are applying to the article have not been applied to every single other country's article, which I do not think is fair to do. That is commenting on the content that you are attempting to remove, am I not allowed to say what you are doing is not benefitting the article? I never said anything negative about you, I am simply stating that I believe you are attempting to remove important information. Bill Williams 13:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should not have used the term "targeting" as you do not edit the other articles I mentioned, and I apologize for implying that you intended to treat one article differently from the others. However, I believe the actual effect of removing the content as you suggested would be negative, since I still think Wikipedia needs consistency, like any useful resource, and we shouldn't be removing content from one country's article that belongs in any country article on a location that has substantial history over the course of millennia. Bill Williams 13:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * targeting was my concern, thank you for the apology. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Hello Bill. I edit sometimes, but always by IP. I'm not a newbie.

I read much of your messages on Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act and really appreciated your commitment to NPOV and honesty about how the biases in RS can easily slip into the encyclopedia if we're not careful.

Great job, and happy editing. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I appreciate the support. I don't like seeing substantial bias anywhere on the wiki, and the article had a massive amount of opinions that were put as facts in Wikivoice, which I thought was not in line whatsoever with NPOV. 20:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"heavy POV pushing"
Bill, if you're going to accuse me of heavy POV pushing, please do not do so on an article talk page. Either take it to my talk page, or one of the appropriate noticeboards like WP:ANI or WP:AE. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I don't think you've done anything wrong, but I do think your edit justifications were in violation of Wikipedia policy. I still do not think you have presented any reliable sources that make justify stating as a fact that the laws harm LGBT children, when that is a controversial claim that no reliable sources flat out state. Bill Williams 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you please amend/strike that part of your reply to that talk page? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can do that. Bill Williams 02:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)