User talk:Bill497

.

Bill497, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bill497! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Bill497, 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

--Shrike (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition per WP:A/I/PIA

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. --Shrike (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told you not allowed to create or edit articles about the conflict such edit is a violation [1] if you continue I will report you.Please stop --Shrike (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike please dont be harsh and dont harras Bill497. That revert he made on my edit (not yours) is not quite relevant. I´am more aware of other threats to Modern conflicts articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Hi Bill497, I wanted to make you aware of the restrictions around articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Editors that have less than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, such as yourself, are not permitted to edit articles relating to the conflict or to create any new ones. More information is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. There is a long history of disruptive editing in this topic area, and new editors are advised to get experience contributing to the encyclopedia in other areas before delving into contentious topics.

Per the above, I have protected two articles you created, 2019 Qousaya attack and 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq. Once you have reached the required 30 days and 500 edits you will automatically be granted the ability to edit them again, but please be aware of the extra rules surrounding this topic area. Thank you for your contributions. – bradv🍁 17:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also protected 2019 Beirut drone crash for the same reasons as above. – bradv🍁 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Qa'im (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I replied on my talk page to your quite heavy statement about my edits of one of the pages, created by you, on which you were temporarily blocked. I try to focus on the content, rather than the people. Wakari07 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack.

User:Lefcentreright while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

More references, please.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lefcentreright}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

LefcentrerightTalk 14:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack

On 15 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Step hen 00:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you indefinitely for persistently and abusively editing while logged out. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I haven't been warned for anything even once before. And for which persistent disruptive edit are you referring to that I have done while logged out? I have never edit warred violated 3RR or vandalized anything on this account, and on any other IP... Bill497 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill497 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely for "persistently and abusively editing while logged out". I wanna start by saying that I have never been even warned on my account until I got this permablock notification, which would be acceptable had I done something such as vandalizing while logged out, I haven't. I haven't even been warned or blocked even once while logged out. Or edit warred. This makes no sense.

Decline reason:

You were editing disruptively while logged out. You aren't accused of vandalism. You don't have to be warned or receive lesser blocks prior to an indefinite block. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill497 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What is this disrupting editing that I've made? I asked the admin who gave it but he didn't respond, neither has the admin who reviewed the previous request. I have not disruptedly edited anything while logged out, but if presented with it I definitely won't repeat it again. This block is like a death sentence for alleged assault on somebody who has never broken the law before, and to make it worst I deny the charges and am not presented with evidence. Bill497 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While logged out, you're repeating the same arguments as User:Gala19000. I'm guessing that's the reason why you did those edits logged out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

OK excuse me for saying but what the darn is going on? I am not that user, never heard of him, and haven't made any disruptive edit while logged out, when asked about it I'm given an account that has nothing to do with me. What is this? Why am I perma blocked for absolute no reason and why is no admin giving any care about it? @NinjaRobotPirate:@PhilKnight:@Bbb23:

Do you I really have to try this hard to prove my innocence that has nothing to do with me? Is this how fair Wikipedia is?Bill497 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill497 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very angry because I am accused and perma blocked for allegedly being a sock puppet of an account I have never heard of. Also angry because admins doesn't seem to care. Don't know how the hell I am suppose to prove my innocence on this that I have nothing to do with it. This makes absolutely no sense, I have never broken a rule on wikipedia, I am given false accusations on why I am banned. Have nothing to do with the claim of being a sock puppet. And I'm just pissed that these admins are so sure about it to not even explain. Considering all the contribution I made in the past month I feel betrayed. Make all those edits and pop, I am snapped off my account for a false accusation. Please investigate this as best as you can because I want you to see your mistake more than I want to get this account back now. Bill497 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as no one has seen fit to review this request since September. You can make a new request that attempts to be more persuasive; I would suggest that you address the reasons why others think you have used multiple accounts when you haven't. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

And one last note I hope you proud admins don't accuse me of being rude in the comments up there. I have every right to be angry when I a perma blocked for a false accusation. Bill497 (talk)

I would like to provide you some context here. Both Bbb23 and NinjaRobotPirate are checkusers. This means that they have access to information from system logs - such as the IP address that you use to edit, as well as certain browser headers. I'm guessing that has a lot to do with your block - but I cannot speak for either of them, and I do not have access to that information myself. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first of all thanks for somebody responding after 72+ hours. I know they are check users, and I don't know why Bbb23 has given the block but will try to provide more context here. I do know that however NinjaRobotPirate is making a serious mistake because I have nothing to with the account he is accusing me of which is why I was so angry in the request up there. I will ping all the admins again so that they can perhaps may more attention and see their mistake. @NinjaRobotPirate:@PhilKnight:@Bbb23:@SQL:

Here are all the IP's that I have used outside of my account which I still defend as having broken no rule, and you can check it for yourselves. [2], [3] and [4]. I have not used these IP's at any point to appear as two users to win an argument or disruptively edit. None of the IP's have broken any rules. Neither has my account Bill497. I've gotten the block for "Persistently and abusively editing" without any prior warning or block, or an explanation. And am given false accusation on being sock puppets of accounts I have never heard of. Bill497 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Aden Missile Strike for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Aden Missile Strike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Aden Missile Strike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 East–West Pipeline attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 East–West Pipeline attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 East–West Pipeline attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Shaybah attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Shaybah attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Shaybah attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Aden (2019) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Aden (2019) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your articles were saved to the Military wiki on Fandom

Greetings @Bill497:. The military related articles you created here have been saved from the wood chipper and imported to the military history wiki over on Fandom/Wikia. If you are interested in continuing to create military related articles, may I suggest trying them out. Here is a link to the Military wiki site until the admins here delete it out of spite. Cheers! 173.71.212.219 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bill497 (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis

Template:Campaignbox 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]