Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Windsor. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I'm at a loss to fully understand why you wrote about this on my talk page (see my reply there). Article content, including images, should be discussed on the article's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hadn't noticed that there was a small discussion on the article's talk page until after the situation was assessed.
If you have any questions or concerns please find my talk page.
What's the matter with you? There is clear consensus on the talk page to keep the image that was there, yet you did this again! And without even commenting in the discussion. If you are asking for trouble, that can be arranged. Please stop it! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Ohio (meme), is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬01:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Watson Cove, Nebraska. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
I will most likely not be resubmitting this article do to the following reasons:
a) This village in Nebraska was told to me by a family member.
b) I have no information other than what that family member spoke to me about.
c) There are no online sources that can verify the information on the page.
If this place is not in existence, I am quite sorry. The municipality I was informed of may even be a ghost town or a settlement of the past, but I can't guarantee for sure, considering there are no online resources. BillClinternet (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tails Wx was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Now, I've been to Ohio two days prior to declining this, and I've seen memes depicting Ohio–and, sure, they did come true! Cars running red lights, concrete cornfield, a bottomless drain–anyway, this needs more reliable sources, because two of the three listed references are what I think are unreliable, though reliable sources like Yahoo or FOX news can work!
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ohio (meme) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, BillClinternet!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TailsWx22:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful
I see from your user page that you're apparently a relatively new editor, which is great news because Wikipedia can always benefit from new editors coming on board. So, first, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that your editing here will be fun and productive.
Second, I'm reaching out to you, as a more experienced editor, to offer what I hope will be helpful advice. You recently reverted editing that I had done earlier today on the Lake City School article, but, unfortunately, you did so with an edit summary ("Vandalism based upon section removing") that was inaccurate and was also a potential violation of Wikipedia policy. Per Wikipedia's explanation of what vandalism is and is not: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia.... Even if misguided ... any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
I can assure you that my editing was done in good faith and, in fact, did not remove a section of the article as you indicated in your edit summary. (I had merely repositioned it to make it easier to expand the article.) Your edit summary also appeared to violate "AGF," one of Wikipedia's most important behaviors: "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it." And that was, quite, simply, what I was trying to do with my edits to the Lake City School article (help the project, not hurt it). So, I ask that, moving forward, you be more cautious before labeling edits made by more experienced editors as vandalism and, perhaps, try reaching out to those editors through the talk pages of the articles you're working on, or via their talk pages. I hope this advice helps. Again, I wish you great success with your editing. Kind Regards. - 47thPennVols (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will most definitely make closer speculation next time.
I can assure you that was a misunderstanding on my end. I will definitely work to improve that. I reverted it basically due to the substantial amount of bytes that were showing upon the changes list.
Hey there Bill. I noticed your discussion with that Danish IP address, and wanted to refer you to Wikipedia:Deny recognition. People who truly want to vandalise, or just will not cooperate, shouldn't be given the fuel, especially post-block. I would recommend letting the facts speak for themselves. A discrete report to AIV is almost always better than a 2kB talk page arguement ;) Schminnte (talk • contribs)14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I basically am just telling him blatantly to request for an admin himself and stop vandalizing, and that's all I will be telling him henceworth.
Thanks, but I knew he probably wouldn't stop bugging me about it, and I wasn't trying to start an argument with him. Some misinterpret my no-nonsense and rather flat personality is actually negative thing one thinks I am trying to be uncivil.
Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that most, if not all of your edits, have been in talk sections berating folks for minor mistakes. Not to mention this revision that you made on the Marchioness of Dorset has an error; all birthdates and deathdates should be approximate, no matter the status of the knowledge of either of the birth-date and death-date, which can be seen as an example on Lady Jane Grey. Although you may say that it is correct because of the book of the letters, it is in-part incorrect becuase you didn't check your sources; here and here suggest that she died in 1541. Not only did you only strengthen the error by broadening her death-date, but you also slandered folks for the same.
On the accounts of the portrait, it is not the Audley End Portrait, but it is the Syon House Portrait, which looks similar to the Berry-Hill portrait, which was lost in 1960 and did depict Lady Jane. Another thing worth noting is that on the Syon House Portrait, there is writing with reads "Q. Jane Grey[,] daugh[ter] of the D. (Duke) of Suffolk [...]" Whether it depicts Katherine or not is another question, but I am stating that it most likely depicts Lady Jane Grey.
Please make sure to follow all of the Guidelines of Wikipedia and to come to a full understanding of the Five Pillars soon.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Throne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen. 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.)
Hello, BillClinternet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Watson Cove, Nebraska, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, BillClinternet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ohio (meme), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:ICON, infoboxes should not contain decorative icons such as coronets.DrKay (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello BillClinternet! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DrKay,
As of yesterday I was blocked from Wikimedia Commons. I am not to fret though, as although many things may look incriminating, most of the copyright violations were simply unintended due to minimal information about the photographer or because one of them was awaiting permission to be used. The only one that is moderately incriminating is the Queen Mother coffin one and the Princess Alexandra 2021 flower show (or presentation, I don't know) pictures which I simply uploaded for no reason. As you may know, I was restless at the time and really had nothing else to do. Moreover, I am hoping my block appeal is lifted from Commons so I can start actually being a good fellow on Commons. It's really influenced from a mix of home life, working life, and educational life. I am hoping you understand, as well, Thanks, BillClinternet (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The block appeal was deleted and I suppose wasn't accepted? Really weird because there was no definitive answer given. I suppose I shall wait until 2024. BillClinternet (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
