BillCaxton
It's easy to bicker, so please respect edits by Talk(ing) ~ at least there is a public record then...
Welcome! edit
Hello, BillCaxton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
Some material for you -----Snowded TALK 11:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Please read the above. Inserting an essay on Brexit without references is not acceptable in wikipedia -----Snowded TALK 22:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Cryptocurrency/blockchain standard notice edit
 | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Hartlepool by-election edit
Hi Bill
I have removed a lot of your editing for the Hartlepool by-election. The great big chunk of text had little specific connection to Hartlepool so could be safely deleted. The content about "gerrymandering" by the Electoral Commission sounds more like a personal grievance, and in any case, gerrymandering is about boundaries, not the Register of Political Parties. The English Independence (Independent?) Party does not have an article here because of rules about notability - see WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a blog (see WP:NOTBLOG) so you just need to be careful about writing a constant stream of writing you think might be helpful during a campaign or election: if you want to write campaign material, put it on a leaflet, not on Wikipedia.
Also I'm looking at the Hartlepool Mail website now, and can't see any quote from Neil Humphrey or the English Independence Party. Can you provide a source?
Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 04:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
More Relevant is that Northern Independence was attacked the same way, as EIP. It is unhealthy, given Lockdowns have limited democracy. First Parliamentary Byelection / PCC / Mayor / Local Boroughs in nearly 2 years, and the Commission want to move their deadline earlier than normal?
It missed its deadline to register for 6th May elections. Newer parties need to be cut some slack. In most cases, just a little blurb and link to website is enough. You have 2 main parties that dominate politics from a hundred years ago, they did not have to go through wikipedia removal challenges. If a party / candidate is on a ballot, I see that as relevant. Given they intend to stand, maybe they will go the ANTI-Corbyn deed-poll route. There is no need for a party application to take many months. This is biased jobs-worths. They whinge of Cambridge Analytica doing bad stuff, they are much worse (harvesting social media of friends / family of party officials, even children under 18. Why is any sketchy head of a gov dept disputing whether he can have pictures of a kid on his home laptop; and using staff to threaten people, contrary to Nolan; either someone is your legal representative in a private libel case, and can show paperwork, or they are not, and just a paid civil servant). Just they get to keep their own bad dealings behind closed doors.
Will delete, but you get the idea.. the system is rigged, and wikipedia plonkers are helping that.
Yes, garrymandering not the right word, but is there a word for removing political parties because you are biased against them? Do not want them to grow to oppose major parties. Press = Censorship, Blackout? Party Suppression? Slippery slope all starts with removing likely opposition parties... Facist / Communist, they both do the same. 'One party pseudo-dictatorship, with weedy opposition' is far too long. https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/outlawing-opposition ...
May 2021 edit
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2021 Batley and Spen by-election. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Czello 19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Doktorbuk was an elected LibDem councillor, how is that 'neutral point of view'. Please restore selections news coverage that was his agenda all along ~ please to not be manipulated into deleting his party's rivals! I would also note that he 'hates UKIP' no suprises for why they are challenged? The result was all reference to 2 rival candidates was removed in an edit war (he waged, and I, the original editor am the one who is blocked? His is the vandalism and lack of using Talk page. Now we know why, so what is your party membership / affiliations Czello and Sparkle1? also Libdems?).
Your recent editing history at 2021 Batley and Spen by-election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 08:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:2021 Batley and Spen by-election, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 08:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You CZello and DoctorBUK seem to be involved in an edit war. You are removing whole sections with no explanation, and at one point DoctorBuk is removing the most relevant refs, only to be followed by you Czello saying no references. Looks like a stitch-up. I WOULD PREFER A 3RD PARTY FIXES DAMAGE. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. This needs an adult. 'HANG Murderers'is cited in the press, so with your political axe to grind, you removed what had been up. You cannot say hey we removed table, when you also deleted Campaign entry ~ that is DECEPTIVE editing.
It has since become evidenced that Doktorbuk was a LibDem councillor, so is NOT independent of commenting on 'rival' parties during an election.
Batley and Spen edit
Hey Bill.
The results boxes in by-election pages have always been written in the style "Bill Caxton", not "CAXTON Bill". Please don't introduce a different style without checking if it's acceptable to the wider community. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence (Political Party)/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
User appears to have misinterpreted what a template is
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Czello 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence Party/meta/color, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Template:English Independence Party/meta/shortname, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Czello 08:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You CZello and DoctorBUK seem to be involved in an edit war. You are removing whole sections with no explanation, and at one point DoctorBuk is removing the most relevant refs, only to be followed by you Czello saying no references. Looks like a stitch-up. I WOULD PREFER A 3RD PARTY FIXES DAMAGE. YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. This needs an adult. 'HANG Murderers'is cited in the press, so with your political axe to grind, you removed what had been up. You cannot say hey we removed table, when you also deleted Campaign entry ~ that is DECEPTIVE editing.
Hello, I'm PatGallacher. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2021 Batley and Spen by-election appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The source and information which you are attempting to add appears to refer to the 2016 by-election, not this one. PatGallacher (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
BillCaxton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Work in progress as only 48 hours... The conspiracy here, as in other UK parliamentary byelections, is (Redacted) BillCaxton (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of this is the least bit relevant. You are blocked for edit warring, not the content of your edits. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I did not start this edit-war. They kept reverting my edits, without talking as I asked. They even deleted candidates selection section when saying they were only removing a table. This only affected 'rival' candidates to their organised political bias.
I am blocked for 48 hours. I can wait. The bias of Doktorbuk and conspiracy with others to "control" rival parties needs addressing after that. I created the main edit, which they systematically took apart for their own biased purposes. Wikipedia cannot afford to have 'party' members attack rival parties without investigation, during an election. The result was all reference to UKIP and Hang Murderers candidates were removed during the active phase of an announced election. The UK has laws which may have been broken. It is time for Doktorbuk to hang up his (biased) pen... Doktorbuk is dragging Wikipedia into ill repute, by admitting deliberate bias against parties, inlcuding English Independence and UK Independence. Imagine either party becomes a government, wikipedia would likely get banned or taxed for being biased election advertising ~ these muppets are making decisions way above their grade.
"Ironically" (couldn't resist it), PLEASE take the time to put the page correct, as a non-UK outsider. Use your words, but please edit war with those implicated so far, and instead only allow completely new editors. This is an election, there was a newspaper citation for Hang Murderers, and even UKIP. These should be restored, immediately, regardless of anything else. Voters will come to wikipedia expecting to find a true and unbiased list of canididates; but due to lack of coverage and censorship, that will be skewed.
- Your personal attacks are about to get you blocked indefinitely. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)