User talk:Bill Williams

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people abortion COVID-19 the Arab–Israeli conflict gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

New Years Greetings Bill Williams; There is a supporting consnesus on the Trump talk page for you to be able to make more trims and condense edits to that Political practise and rhetoric section by reducing each of the subheadings there to no more than one paragraph each. It should bring the article to somewhere under 300Kb in size which is a big improvement. Multiple support for this edit on the Talk page there whenever you have time to make the condense edits there. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, Jan 7, some one is trying to revert your sequence of trim and condense edits to the "Political positions and rhetoric" section from when you did them on Dec 26 here: [1]. Possibly you could look at this when you have a chance. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, and Happy New Year to you as well! I will look back at the Trump article and find more to trim, as you suggested. Bill Williams 01:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor is now reverting further here: [2]. It seems that one way to get past this is to note the big success which you had when you ran the RfC for the '1st Presidency section' and then also the '2nd Presidency section'. It seems that other editors are holding it against you that you didn't run another RfC for the 'Political practice and rhetoric' section before you made your very good trim edits back on Dec 26. If you can run an RfC for that section as well, then the third time could work well again for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By now you must now about WP:V. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I didn't know how to properly word it, so I knew that concern may arise. There still needs to be some clarification to that claim, or we should delete it from the article entirely. It was made up by a local newspaper with zero evidence, and as I added, none has surfaced since, including the name of the supposed informant who was supposed to go public years ago. Hence it doesn't abide by WP:BLP, but I should have challenged that directly rather than poorly attempting to clarify it in the article. Bill Williams 20:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking it to WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]