User talk:William Avery/Archive 7

Incorrect Information?
"Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to French language, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. William Avery (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)" User talk:24.207.77.97

Can you substantiate this?

I've just checked the article and changes you are referring to. This isn't vandalism at all you fool, it's a correction of two definitions being malatributed. If you can actually demonstate the error is on my behalf, I apologise, though I'm certain it's not. None the less, calling it vandalism is blatantly incorrect and overbearing. Please, learn to use your language accurately and properly and drop the threats over attempts to modify an article. There are few things more petty than an online bully. -24.207.77.97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.77.97 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the part that says "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_language&diff=prev&oldid=363504381. 'Vous', formal; 'tu', informal, is correct. 13:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear William Avery
You have written something inside my talkpage. I've written the truth. If you want to check out, search on www.google.com "element 117".58.187.27.21 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock
Hi, since you have been part of the recent issues at same-sex marriage I am notifying you that I have started a WP:SOCK case at Sockpuppet investigations/Jstanierm. Thank you, C T J F 8 3  chat 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, you seem to be also active in reverting vandalism to Kumquat. I am propising the article be semi-protected because it has a very low constructive edits to vandalism ratio. I am requesting comments to Talk:Kumquat. I have never before proposed article protection and am a bit unsure if this is a valid case. --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Civil Rights Act of 1964
I reverted your edit to Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA64) and you wrote on my Talk page: "Regarding this could you let me know what the inaccuracy is?" Your edit included the phrase "extended voting rights" which is inaccurate, CRA64 did nothing to extend voting rights.

If you look at the legislative history of the fight to pass CRA64, you'll see that all of the proposed provisions in Title I that would have actually extended voting rights were dropped before the bill was signed into law on July 2, 1964. What remained in Title I of the Act had no effect in extending voting rights. That's why there were major struggles to win voting rights for Blacks and other minorities in 1964 and 1965 which culminated in the Selma to Montgomery marches and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA65). If you compare VRA65 to the original proposals for CRA64, you'll see that it basically enacted the voting rights provisions that had been dropped from CRA64. Claiming that CRA64 "extended voting rights" is misleading because it ignores this legislative history. Brucehartford (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gray
Hello, I have added more people named Gray that were active in malacology. . --Snek01 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. William Avery (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

awaiting curly bracket outcome.
roger dodger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.158.105 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicken feet
Thank you Mister Avery. I like your images. If there are any images you would like of things in China, let me know. I rather like images of the Chinese equivalent of ordinary things found in Europe. Tomorrow I will take a picture of a Chinese wheelbarrow. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Meeting in Bristol this weekend
Hi this is Steve Virgin from the Board of Wikimedia UK

I am a fellow Bristolian

We have a Wikimedia Conference in town this weekend

We were getting some of the Bristol Project Wikipedians together at the Watershed on Saturday night for a Wiki Meet at around 6.30pm.

This is a good opportunity to meet people from the national Chapter, other Chapters from around the world and from the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a bar tab to help proceedings and we would be very keen to see you there.

RSVP - let me know if you are able to come and feel free to invite any other local Wikipedians in Bristol

Steve virgin (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Temlate:Recent death
Hi. I dont care about this particular case but the recent death template can be applied to any article about a recently dead prson who has a Wikipedia article about them. It doesnt matter if it is an article about Micharl Jackson or some model from the 50s.. or whatever. Just that a person has recently died is enough for putting this tag up.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But however you are right when it comes to the facts... that it should only be used in high profile cases. But usually people dont care and let them be on to have it as a reminder that a person has recently died for atleast 24 hours. cheers.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Prod
Did you happen to note the vandlism of this article (compared with this revision) before you prodded it? --Tothwolf (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite 'vandalism', more a lack of competence, I'd say. I'd guess the involved IPs have a conflict of interest, but I think their concern over coatracking is justified. I can understand dislike for the characterisation 'bathhouse'. I'm only going to do what's necessary to get rid of an article which I don't think should exist. William Avery (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)