User talk:William Sommer

'if for whatever reason you decide to send a ,message about someone's I.P. address being used as a User Name, REFRAIN!' You are not welcomed here.````

Hello, William Sommer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! William Sommer, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - now that you are editing from a named account please can you stop editing from an anonymous account as well? GiantSnowman 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from both a named account and an anonymous/IP account (i.e. logged out of your named account) could be construed as wp:sockpuppetry. Please be careful. Jim1138 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to be afraid of so please refrain from unjustified acts on behalf of WP authority. I do not expect you or any one else to appreciate my stance and certainly I have better things to do than sock puppetry; another term so loosely used by WP'dians in the know. Interesting that characterization assassinations are so non-repulsed on complain boards let alone purported statements of fact based on prejudices. I have held the opinion and will continue to hold the opinion that whatever is needed by WP to protect it's interests will be metered out by its hierarchy.William Sommer (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to engage in a little self-reflection. You have accused almost everyone here of one type of bias or another, but what about your use of the term "WP'dians"? The use of that term could be consider derogatory towards Native Americans. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right?— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My very sentiments. It is just part of the barrage that comes with the environment right now with the board discussion. I just add it up to being the flavor of the week.William Sommer (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not apply it to all 'dians since the example was clearly for WP. It never said or implied as you would like for it to be characterized as such. Why not have one of the Native American group comment on your behalf.William Sommer (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rafael Septién, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't copy and paste whole conversations to other pages -- just link them. Copying and pasting them, as with your overly long and pointless rants, is just plain disruptive and incompetent. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post on my talk page again. ClaireWalzer (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:ClaireWalzer. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Your block will expire in 48 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. llywrch (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Please do not add misdated "clarification needed" tags to typos, but either: a) ignore the typo b) correct the typo and (if you really feel the need for clarification of a word such as "othe") date your tags with appropriate markup (ie. date=2015 rather than "dated=April 2015" (sic)). Many thanks, ClaireWalzer (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten your previous abrogation to communicate with me and I do not feel competent to do what you ask so can only do what it is that I can to identify such mistakes.William Sommer (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's clearly a typo of the word "other". Maybe you could just go and fix that? And yeah, you need to use "date=" rather than "dated=". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even looking at what you're doing before you add the tag? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClaireWalzer--you should have opened a new section instead of changing what is the record.William Sommer (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Claire changed the title shows that she is trying to assume good faith from you. That you changed it back shows that you are not assuming good faith (part of the reason you were blocked before). Also people are allowed to alter their own comments if they have not been responded to yet, and you are allowed to remove those comments if they are on your talk page, but you are not allowed to not alter the comments of others. I highly recommend changing it back, or it will be added to a case that you should be indefinitely blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what has happened does not work that way and you above all should know that regardless what wants to be changed. You cannot say that the Romans wish that they never crucified Jesus as an entendre to bringing him back to life. To say more is just to support your previous assessment that anything I said was a rant.William Sommer (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of events:

1) Claire used the original heading.

2) Claire almost immediately changed the heading she added, as is her right according to WP:REDACT, in an attempt to show good-faith.

3) You changed what she wrote, which is forbidden by WP:TPO, in a petty attempt to assume bad faith (unless you meant to imply that your edits were vandalism).

If there is something wrong here, you need to present WP:DIFFs or cite policies, instead of trying to compare yourself to Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is much that she could redact and didn't and to be selective is just taking a technicality to make something disappear. This is not a game of technicalities as you and other more authoritative administrators seem to relish. This is what has happened and that is restored with my move. If she wants to attempt a change then do it with a new section. You have decided what you want to do long ago and the talk page discussions show this so go ahead and use this as a confrontation personality. It just supports my finding that WP administrators that find contributors not to their liking do what they can to eliminate them. You may not agree with this and will present it as hostile but that is your decision to persist and the ClaireWalzer contributions record clearly shows that I seem to be that editor's sole interest. Changing it back to what was there is not bad faith and is not hostile although you view it that way to support your view and influence.William Sommer (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about preserving the record are ludicrous since that's what the talk page history is for. The only reason to alter Claire's words would be to parade around the initial statement and deny the redaction.

And again, you need to cite diffs and policies, otherwise you're just wasting space. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide what another user meant or intended by restoring selected portions of their edits. Period. If you want to address and complain about the person's edit, you can point to the edit by using "diffs", but you do not get to materially misrepresent their comments by selectively restoring the problem edits as though the editor left them that way. You can disagree all you want, but you are wrong, and what you did is a violation of talk page guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments. Amortias (T)(C) 18:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William, you may remove talk page comments, but you may not refactor them. Contrary to what you believe, this is not your talk page, this is Wikipedia's talk page. I advise you to elevate your behavior ASAP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review the record. I am no longer a contributor to WP. I no longer want to be your flavor of the day or month.William Sommer (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was true, you'd've logged out instead of responding. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @William Sommer, I think you should continue to edit Wikipedia. You are an enthusiastic editor who edits with good faith. I think the main issue, which can be fixed, is that you tend to make mass edits and sometimes based on a mistake. I suggest for now avoiding making mass edits or first ask an experienced editor whether the proposed mass changes would be helpful. I certainly would be willing to help out if you asked. You'll find that it is not so hard to get along with people here if you are reasonably friendly and ask for advice when you are uncertain. BTW, I've asked for advice many times and on many topics. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Etah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bajra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]