User talk:Bill le Conquérant

Bill le Conquérant, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Bill le Conquérant! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OIML content[edit]

Hi Bill le Conquérant

You have twice reverted text that I added to the article International Organization of Legal Metrology. May I draw your attention to the following on the page Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

I regard your explanations for removal of a significant part of the test as being frivilous, as will I suspect any administrator. If you revert again, I will lodge a formal complaint for vandalism. Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bill le Conquérant. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of a banned user, DeFacto (talk · contribs) that was created in violation of Wikipedia policy. No edits from banned users are welcome and will be reverted upon discovery.

If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please tell me this is a mistake. What has happened? First User:Martinvl went around removing links to the legal metrology article that I've been working on since I started here. Then after I put them all back, some other idiot went around removing them all again and reverting all my other recent edits as if they were worthless. Now I can't do anything. There has got to be a rational explanation for this, surely. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is watching here, can they see if they can stop User:Toddst1 from vandalizing any more articles. There are "bots" triggering off all over the place trying to fix some of the damage to the integrity of Wikipedia that he has caused. He has removed new content, corrupted redirects and vandalized links, and that's just in articles on my short watchlist, who knows what else he has trashed on his rampage. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martinvl, that's some of them restored anyway.

If you get a chance can you revert some more of Toddst1's ~~vandalism~~ damage in the rest of these articles too please:

~~European Association of National Metrology Institutes~~ - Toddst1's damage fixed by Martinvl
~~European Collaboration in Measurement Standards~~ - Toddst1's damage fixed by Martinvl
~~EURAMET~~ - Toddst1's damage fixed by Martinvl
International Organization of Legal Metrology
Talk:International Organization of Legal Metrology
ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard
National Institute of Metrology Standardization and Industrial Quality
List of châteaux in Normandy
Mass versus weight
Château de Beaumesnil
Talk:Legal metrology
National Measurement Office
International vocabulary of metrology
SWEDAC

By the looks of things I need to make a formal "unblock request" to sort this mess out, but I've got some more reading to do yet to try and understand it all. I'll try and get back on tomorrow. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

It's been nearly two weeks now, and I keep looking back in with the forlorn hope that someone will have realised that a mistake has been made, and that my block has been lifted. But, clearly, there is no automatic review or auditing of these actions, and the onus is now on me to try to do something about it. I have read through the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and it doesn't even seem to acknowledge that blocks may be the reuslt of a mistake, so I'm clearly guilty (of something) until I can somehow prove my innocence. I am reluctant to dignify such an apparently weighted disciplinary system by participating in it any further, but I am somehow compelled to at least attempt to understand how I have ended up in this position. The clear advice is to use the "unblock" syntax, so here goes:

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).

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

Request reason:

Understanding what I did and why I have been blocked: I am really at a loss to understand this. I recently retired after a long engineering career, which included several decades close to metrology. I came to Wikipedia to see if I could add something from my cache of knowledge and experience in those, and other fields. I have found many holes in the coverage of metrology, and tentatively started improving and creating content. Whilst I was still finding my feet, I also started working on a couple of articles related to places that provided the dramatic backdrop to my parents' escape, with me as a baby, from France during WWII. With hindsight now, I realise that some of my contributions did receive a somewhat hostile reception, as if I was breaking some unwritten rule or stepping on someone else's toes. ;Give a good reason for your unblock: What could be a better reason than I haven't done anything wrong, as far as I can understand? I appear to have been blocked for the "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". That fails to stand up to scrutiny on both counts. I do not have an alternate account. I have not, as far as I am honestly aware, used my account innapropriately. I have done nothing but add worthy content, and referenced it to the best of my ability. You can see that from my edit history record. I certainly have no intention of disrupting the good work of the Wikipedia project - I came to add knowledge to it, not to spoil it. If you still believe me to be guilty, please provide an explanation of the reasons for that belief, because I am sure that any such belief must be founded on a misunderstanding or mistaken assumption. I will try to clarify, reconcile or provide an alternate explanation for any such belief. ;Agree to behave: If you agree that this block should be lifted, I will certainly endeavour to keep my nose clean, and I have no intention or desire to misbehave: life is too short! I have a great deal to offer Wikipedia, particularly to the engineering and metrology topics, but I also hope to improve on some of the sparser coverage currently enjoyed by some of the topics related to Northern France. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering your contributions, the contention that you are a sockpuppet of DeFacto is plausible enough. Sandstein 17:43, 7 March 2013 (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.

Accusing a respected and experienced admin of vandalism is not the best way to achieve an unblock. You should, in any case, apply at your primary account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know he was a respected admin, all I saw was an unexplained trail of destruction of perfectly good content, across several articles and without even any edit summaries, but I have now amended my comment above in the light of your comments here. And I don't have any other account, that's what I'm confirming. If you suspect otherwise, please at least explain why. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that judgement. There was no rationale, too many unanswered questions and clearly the 3 minutes between this and the previous case was not long enough to reach an adequately reasoned decision for such a serious accusation. I need to see the reasoning, assuming there was some. Did the respected and experienced admin just happen to spot me editing and block me on sight as a suspected sockpuppet? Presumably not. So what was it tha aroused his suspicions? Why didn't he discuss those suspicions with me? What were the checks and balances? Why was I not given any chance to respond before the block was enforced? Where's the evidence? Who represented me at the hearing? Am I wrong, or naive, to expect answers to these questions before the judgement is made, let alone before the sentence is carried out? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.211.103.38 (talk) [reply]

I removed your talk page access because you reverted my declining of your unblock request. You can still request to be unblocked through other venues. Sandstein 20:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]