JWilliams835

JWilliams835, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JWilliams835! 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 Bsoyka (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello JWilliams835! Your additions to African Americans have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• 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. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. 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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, copyright wasn't the stated basis for the removal, so can you please let me know what part was violating copyright rules? Also, isn't the vast majority of cited material on this website (news articles, books, etc.) under copyright?JWilliams835 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have double checked, and discovered that most what you added is quotations, which is not a copyright violation. Sorry for the mistake. Your last sentence is incorrect - the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by volunteers, not copied from copyright websites.— Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Some advice

Howdy hello. I see that you have quickly dived into some controversial topics on Wikipedia. My general advice is: slow down. Anything related to politics is...extra spicy here on Wikipedia. I recommend you find a non-controversial area to hone your skills on first. It is good for every editor to have a "safety" area. For me, that is birds. They are cute, fun to write about, and hardly ever controversial. Writing in these "safe" areas is a great way to learn the ropes, figure out sourcing, and what we expect out of our writing. Frequent areas of interest include trains, cities, animals, weather, books, and so on. There are endless WikiProjects which can help with these areas. If you continue on your current path, you are likely to find yourself in hot water. Trying to argue about Pizzagate is a futile effort, and your time would be much better spent in other areas. If you would like some help figuring out where else to edit, or other general editing advice, I would be more than glad to help. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello, JWilliams835, 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 WillieP100 (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) 23:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Pizzagate conspiracy theory) for a period of 1 week for edit warring at Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 23:15, 16 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🍁 01:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A word of advice, you are going to use multiple accounts, it's best not to draw attention to yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User: bradvUser: CorbieVreccanUser:AcroterionUser:GeneralNotabilityUser:BilCatUser:Seminolegirl94User:DrmiesUser:MceliteUser: SlaterstevenUser:Firefangledfeatherstalktalktalktalktalktalktalk If some of you actually bothered to read my edits before banning me for life, you would have seen that none of the material was unsourced as you claimed, it was backed by 15 sources. The 'unsourced' sentence was the lede, which summarized the sourced material in the section added in the body.

None of the material suggested that blacks are 'the real Native Americans' as CorbieV falsely claimed, it only said that some blacks were (and to some degree still are) real Native Americans, alongside the many groups of 'Asian' [i.e. Siberian/Northeast Asian] derivation, who are also real since they too have been here for thousands of years and qualify as 'native,' and that blacks may have been the first or first known people in some areas e.g. parts of the Southeast. I don't know or care what Mcelite believes, but my personal 'POV' is what is known as diffusionism (a not-so-controversial theory that is alive and well and has been worked on throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and before then) and sometimes characterized by conventional Bering-Strait holdouts as 'hyperdiffusionism,' which holds that a variety of ethnicities occupied the Americas prior to European colonialism - Polynesian/Melanesian, Siberian, Ainu/Jomon, Levantine, Norse, Celtic, black African (recent arrivals ca. 1300 AD and earlier), non-black African (prehistoric arrivals). The material I cited explicitly recognized our multi-racial pre-Columbian past and was not Afrocentric or exclusionary of other groups. It has nothing to do with black supremacy or denigrating or denying the existence of other native groups; the existence of black groups just has more evidence behind it and is an easier route to take to support diffusionism, where the other groups were smaller and melded into the existing Mesoamerican/American culture. Beyond my 'POV,' it's just true, it's been discussed at length by authoritative scholars (whether you've heard of them or read them or not, or accept their theories, is immaterial), and should be included in an encyclopedia, if only as a non-mainstream or disputed theory (which is how I myself characterized it in the edits).

The slave trade occurred on some scale (much lower than reported) and thus most 'African Americans' do have some descendants who were African slaves, but also have black indigenous American, non-African descendants, as well as non-black indigenous descendants, European descendants, etc. There was no counting of black or indigenous populations in censuses until around 1800, and the books were retroactively cooked for the 300 years prior to that point to exaggerate the African slave trade and cover up the enslavement of black indigenous people, many of whom by that time had been mixed with Africans and homogenized as 'negroes.' (Some advocates of the 'black aboriginal' thesis deny the slave trade altogether and call it a hoax, I don't.)

None of that matters here though. People get their panties in a bunch when they see something they don't like and become totally immune to reason (and maybe some of them are paid to do so, likely some of the above-named). They dismiss whatever you have, no matter how much, as non-notable, too old, or whatever else and go straight for the jugular with lifetime bans practically the same day you post anything, while any material here relating to conventional pre-Columbian history is either unsourced or poorly sourced, sometimes sounds like it was written for a 5th grade book report, and in any case is not remotely monitored by 'the clique' or vetted. It's pathetic and a disgrace to what is supposed to be an online institution for knowledge.

The number of people who seem to follow me around in this site and who move for bans instantly is literally like 10-20 people out of 60,000 confirmed editors. Yet 'there is no cabal.' If there is a cabal, and there is to a high degree, you're poisoning your own well with your increasingly ham-handed, clownish censorship, which is very well known at this point and has severely damaged the site's credibility. Censorship, particularly aggressive censorship, never works, and just results in slow decay and backwater cultural irrelevance and inferiority. Maybe 30% or so of the population, nowhere near a critical mass, will fully recognize your authority, and the rest will be skeptical to varying degrees. That's where you're headed, really at a breakneck pace. If Jimmy is one of the good guys (and I'm far from sure he is) and has control over the administrators here, he needs to clean house ASAP.

And Drmies, I'm tagging you because you and your cohorts (Acroterion, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, others) have been stalking my edits for years, and magically show up same-day (often within minutes) any time another user needs 'backup' and wants to ban me.JWilliams835 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked for this account too. If you want to appeal, do so from your original account. And read WP:GAB before you do – most of what you've written here is completely irrelevant to a block appeal. – bradv🍁 00:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bradv, this was a fascinating essay, though. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't actually involved other than connecting some dots. For me, the moment someone says something like "the books were retroactively cooked...to exaggerate...and cover up", that's a good sign it probably is a conspiracy theory. (I realize they can't respond now, but they pinged me here to read their rant.) BilCat (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

We interacted on one page Pizzagate conspiracy theory on which his edits had nothing to do with race. Nor does this explain why they were socking. Also, the comment about being stalked for years, when this account has only been active for less than a month is a clear indication that they have indeed been using (and abusing) multiple accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)