WillieP100

May 2021

Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, AR-15 style rifle, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WillieP100, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WillieP100! 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 Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

May 21

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You may have breached WP:1RR. as Such.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Kevin Barrett (journalist)

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Draft:Kevin Barrett (journalist) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. — Diannaa (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Important notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, GorillaWarfare, what political subjects are you referring to?WillieP100 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits to articles about alt-tech platforms. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, why do you believe the creation of alternatives to tech-platform monopolies is a political issue?WillieP100 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WillieP100, that argument is not going to work: it is a matter that is highly relevant to American politics. You can try to turn that around and make like it's GorillaWarfare's opinion, but it's not. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not about what I believe. Talk:BitChute has a notice indicating that it is under the umbrella of the WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions (as do a number of other alt-tech platforms). I was ensuring you were aware. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Black Indians in the United States, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Other editors have also raised concerns that your edits could be violating core policies of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You need to discuss these changes with editors on article talk. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:CorbieVreccanI solicited discussion on talk BEFORE you reverted my edits. And I see you have nothing to say about it, so what gives? Where can I find these 'concerns by other editors'?WillieP100 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WillieP100, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as JWilliams835 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yamasee, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:AcroterionWhat is the synthesis you are referring to? Why did you delete the material from the US census? There is no synthesis, it's all a quote from the publication. Also, what personal analysis are you referring to? The reliable/notable material cited relates to the subjects at hand and I have simply compiled it into a paragraph, with none of my own input.WillieP100 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:CoosaGA1 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoosaGA1. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv🍁 01:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:BradvUser:AcroterionUser:FirefangledfeathersUser:CorbieVreccanUser:GeneralNotabilityUser:MceliteUser:Seminolegirl94talktalktalktalktalk You can and will do whatever the hell you want with my account, just like you can and have teamed up to stalk and gang-revert my productive if somewhat controversial edits, while letting countless other bad and badly sourced edits stand -- but McElite Seminolegirl94(?) and the 41 IP address are not socks, not of me at least. I have no idea who she/he is or where she/he is, and if you compare my editing patterns, subjects of interest (outside of the intersection/overlap of black and Indian history), and writing style, there is no similarity. I don't want anyone else pulled down with me. Someone made the really dumb assumption/'conspiracy theory' that because two people have a similar stance on an issue that bears greatly on world history and directly relates to the heritage of tens of millions of people (nearly a billion when you count Latin America/Caribbean), they must be the same person. F'ing moron.

Wikipedia's clownish, tin-pot/Chinese-style handling of controversial issues 'debunked conspiracy theory' 'far-right' 'no evidence' 'fringe' etc., mostly carried out by a small clique, just discredits it and leads people to lump it in with the 'reliable-source' mainstream media, which has rock-bottom levels of credibility. Everyone who matters (opinion influencers/thought leaders, on both the right and the independent left) knows that WP isn't really a collaborative project but is instead locked down by a clique of bullies when it comes to any subject of remote controversy. If you ruled it with a looser hand it might actually be believable. WillieP100 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. – bradv🍁 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)