User talk:Francis E Williams

Please Note:-
"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account. Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request."

Freedom of speech - the right for users to reply when blocked from article editing.
(Extract that was removed from a discussion page) Yes, but that`s where you`re wrong!. I`m not just abandoning my account, I`m leaving this site to it`s own devices. I have better things to do with my time left. Yes, it is sad that you are loosing the benefit and knowledge from what was a content contributor (with real words and paragraphs not just sentences). it is bizarre that I have to try and make my point in this fashion, when you deny free speech that makes good sense. Take the blinkers off for goodness sake and step back and take a good look at yourselves, and what is considered to be "politically correct" talking but has no basis in the real world.. Nobody can teach experience, wisdom. Until the episode with 24.177.120.138 and his various accounts I had no need to be anything but a satisfied legitimate user with ONE static i.p. address and user name. I guarantee you, (and check out the logs) I have never created any other account in any other name. I only used legitimate means (my static i.p. address) to create the "sock" account to try and give back some of the hassle I was getting. I know what to do with internet access, as I have said before don`t underestimate my intelligence or access to resources. I can access thousands of i.p. addresses, not just via B.T.s networks. All the i.p. addresses used today are all new to me and the 217.43.161.176 was a fault on your own system which accidentally gave me access to edit. I didn`t get to Wiki until way after that i.p. address was first used for one edit only. Check it out see if I`m teeling the truth if you know how. You are all assuming who I am what I am and seeing the world throught your own system only. The guys that can sort these issues out have to have a degree of intelligence (not neccessarily an education). If I can do it, surely can`t you see by now that so can anyone else, and hey, I`m on old senile soon to be state pensioner who refuses to grow old gracefully, and still remembers being a teenager with attitude! You`re as old as you think yourself to be. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge and dismiss my character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.252 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How to Stop the war
The only problem you are encountering here is that you insist on trying to carry on a fight when you need to drop it, and you keep trolling that other IP's Talk page while he's blocked. If you're really nearly a pensioner, surely you're grown up enough to just let it go so we can try to bring and end to the disruption? We stopped the attacks on you, and we will do so again if they continue. But if you insist on trying to get in the last punch, it will never stop - and I'm sure you can understand that, can't you? It's up to you really - if you'll drop the fight and stop insisting on retaliation (including reverting edits of unconnected editors with whom you have had other previous problems), then your account is still there and I don't see why you can't resume with it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I will bid you goodnight and I hope you'll have a think on these words -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In reply to your observations, I don`t know about turning the other cheek with regard to this I.P. user, who has no reason to be an i.p.user, who has a serious disregard towards other users on Wikipedia. Trolling; is a quaint phrase, if my attempts to return the compliments received today are what it means. Yes, my body has grown old, but I`m not worn down by what life has thrown my way. I have great wisdom, but choose when to use it. I have waited patiently for this i.p. to return to my talk page with his final comment and my reply in return. Just because he has skills in various technologies and the systems in place on this site doesn`t give him the right to assume others have no right to use the same tactics against him as well. Let him learn a good long lesson from the encounter, let him suffer the knowledge that all he can do is watch the opportunity go by to reply to me today, let him lose the opportunity to exchange any further vitriolic dialogue. Unblock him, let him offer to amend his attitude, he doesn`t appear to be doing it yet, nor will he ever! Francis E Williams (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic
To Francis E Williams, if you're watching here - if you have any constructive discussion you'd like to engage in, about how we dealt with your recent dispute with the IP editor (in which I thought we had treated you pretty well), you still have access to your own User Talk:Francis E Williams page if you log in. So if you raise it there in a clear manner (and not the cryptic messages you have been leaving us), I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But you will not get any response posting here from an IP address -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I watch all pages relating to this encounter and have tried to add comment to defend my actions despite having my comments susequently removed. I cannot comprehend what you fail to understand. I am using English English, I cannot write it in any simpler way than I have done already. Oh, had all this happened to you, you would be happy, and content with the responses that I have received from other users for my "sins" against commonsense? We seem to be reading the same words in two seperate ways. You still seem to find it difficult to understand the deep anger and frustration initiated by the I.P. user. I have persisted in teaching this guy a lesson in the only way I can on this site. I have "crossed swords" (as one user has put it), on behalf of, and in defense of the under dog with many authorities and institutions for many years. A trifling little 3 month encounter like this with an i.p. cannot compare with what can be acheived with the keyboard. I really do have to go now, don`t take all this too personally. Francis E Williams (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI page

 * Shortcut to ANI page is here

User talk:24.177.120.138
Leave off the snarky personal comments at User talk:24.177.120.138 please, or you could end up on the wrong end of a block yourself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And do not carry on the baiting here either! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You`re just a tad too late with your biased comments, sorry not to have time to chat.Francis E Williams (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To all the good guys and gals
Thanks, for your help co-operation and support in my time on Wiki. WORD. Francis E Williams (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to bait a blocked IP editor after a rather nasty personal dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated trolling and block evasion - to be unblocked, you will need to give us some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict has occured

 * Well, can you just explain what you want to happen? What you want people here to do? If you are not happy with the way the Wikipedia community and its admins have responded to you, please explain where we have fallen short and what you would like us to do. What we want is to bring to an end the fight you've been having with the IP editor, and we can't achieve that by your insisting on "teaching this guy a lesson". He's been blocked, and if you are attacked again, we will block again - as many times as necessary, up to a permanent block. So what we're asking is for you to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines yourself, and leave the resolution of your disagreements to the usual Wikipedia channels. If you are prepared to go forward in a collegial an cooperative way, you'll get the same approach from us. But if you insist on acting out of anger and continuing the fight, then you will just turn the community against you and we will have no real option but to try to stop your continuation of the fight. And please, you're asking us to accept that you are intelligent and knowledgable. Of course we do, but please don't treat us as stupid in return. Anyway, I hope we can resolve this in an amicable manner. (And no need to worry about "Englishisms" - I'm English myself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Block him (and any other user) indefinitly at the first (proved) violation, from now on, that will send out the right message to everyone. Insist on account creation to be able to edit to help prevent drive by vandalism. I use this procedure on sites I manage. Have a seperate section where new pages can be built and assessed before they are released into the main "Live" encyclopedia. Have contributions held over for checking before they are added into articles undergoing edit warring. I don`t assume that all admins are stupid, perhaps misguided by the current approach to problem solving is a better way to put. Much time is spent overcoming issues, not contributing on Wiki. I re-read your comments and had established that you could only be Englsih with a user name from the "magic roundabout". As you can see, I was busy amending my hastily constructed comments and just about to post them when you posted your last edit. It takes me ages to type this stuff in. Part of the problem here with edit conflicts. I have a final message for the i.p. user, this really is the last and final WORD.Francis E Williams ([[User

talk:Francis E Williams#top|talk]]) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I appreciate what you're saying, but unfortunately none of those things is in our power at this moment. Requiring registration, mandating a "new pages" section for review and pre-approval - both ideas certainly have merit, but it would require a major change to the way Wikipedia works, a huge consensus-building effort, or perhaps a mandate from the Wikimedia foundation - and there's no way it's going to happen any time soon. As for an indef block for a first proven offence - if I did that, I'd probably get blocked myself, because again it would be a pretty major violation of policy. And I don't think it would be a good idea - I've seen many instances where violators are actually turned around by early warnings and early blocks, and we'd be throwing out lots of redeemable editors just to get rid of the bad ones. I think the system of escalating blocks works pretty well. And if you can just leave it to the admins here to manage those blocks, we'll get the problem stopped a lot quicker than your carrying on a seemingly never-ending war of words with the guy. It's been going on for months and getting worse, but if it had been brought to the proper channels earlier it would have been settled earlier. So please, I'm asking you, can you just leave the guy alone and don't try to have the last word in your fight with him - he's being watched, and if he resumes after his block expires, he'll be blocked again for longer and any new transgression will be reverted. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What crap is this? certainly not what adults behave like ...a dictatorial regime with no regard to free unfettered speech ...A sham in every sense of the word.!!!!

=
 * Having left this page to fester for a few years, havong now suffered a stroke and am diabetic illness (with even poorer eyes than before ...I can safely say...I don't miss this environment or the mentally retarded people who pretend to "adminiser" it. I'd love to shake the hand of the person who wrote the above comment. Francis E Williams 11.55 GMT the 24th June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.240.74 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)