User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 11

Methods for the timely replacement of cartridges in respirators

Dear WilliamJE, You submitted an article Methods for the timely replacement of cartridges in respirators for deletion. This article has been significantly changed. If You think that this change is not enough to save the article, please indicate the specific reason for the removal, or to indicate that still requires improvement. Please help - I am not a Wikipedian, and could not find a place to discuss articles that are put up for deletion (may be - Preloaded debate?). Thank You very much. AlexChirkin (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Certain" administrators

WJE:
A few minutes ago I stumbled across your user page and your comments about "certain" administrators at the Wikipedia.
While reading your description I experienced several empathetic chuckles.
Predictably, I share your view of those few exceptions, and I understand your feelings about them.
Although neither Nyttend nor Orlady has ever blocked me or threatened to do so, I have had unpleasant experiences with each of them.
At different times they tampered with some of my work (both articles of my own composition and edits to other articles).
Trying to reason with either of them was much like trying to hold an intelligent conversation with a fencepost.
Both are dictatorial, highly opinionated, and grossly overconfident but underqualified, and each of them has a huge case of self-importance.
Orlady knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter involved, and she showed no interest in it, yet she felt free to dictate to me about the content of what I wrote.
She further had difficulty in recognizing what the passive voice is, and what it's not, and she showed no familiarity with any style manual other than what she could find at the Wikipedia MoS.
She also called in a fellow schoolyard bully to gang up with her against me; the other person launched against me a nasty personal attack which had nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
Oh, well ....
Still, though, one good result of my bad experiences here is that I soon created my own website, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds, about one of my main interests.
In one section of the home page of my website, entitled "The Reason for This Website", I describe some of my unpleasant experiences at the Wikipedia.
Thanks for reading my babbling.
Best wishes,
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

Category:1959 establiishments in Iowa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:1959 establiishments in Iowa. Since you had some involvement with the Category:1959 establiishments in Iowa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tim! (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jim Costa page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. Quis separabit? 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I'm sorry to bother you since we've never had any interaction before but I need an ally at the moment. I've gotten into a debate on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licence_to_Kill#Questionable_word. Upon review I noticed that you weighed into this issue in the past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licence_to_Kill#Edit_warring_over_the_word_.27raped.27) and that we seen to share the same point of view that it is a matter of opinion. Unfortunately the issue is being steamrolled by a single editor who thinks his word it law and has gotten very nasty in his repsonses. I understand if you don't want to get involved in this again. But I would really appreciate your help. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie. There are several editors who disagree with you and the consensus is very much against you. You somehow seem to think you are the sole arbiter of the wording of this based on your POV: you are not, and the current consensus version remains until it actively changes on the talk page, regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at the LTK talk page....William 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bother you again but could use your help again on the Licence to Kill page. I proposed a compromise the other day but now some are trying to undo the compromise to get their way. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING: smart! - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Try reading what Canvassing has to say. Under appropriate notifications are-

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Either of which I'd qualify under. Still haven't gotten the LTK book....William 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the book: you've been told by several editors that its contents are immaterial as far as it relates to the film. As to CANVASS, if neutrally worded messages are left on all editors pages who took part, that's not canvassing: coming to one person who has expressed a view that supports your own certainly is canvassing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If the LK book is immaterial, so are all the books you keep citing since they don't have any direct connection to the movie. Therefore we are back to the movie and rape or any other similar term to it is never used plus MOSPLOT says-

Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.

The reliable sources message board will sort out if the book or the sources you cite are valid or none of them. My proposal for the book would solve everything. Unless you already know what the answer is. You admit to owning it....William 19:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"My proposal for the book would solve everything": not in the slightest, as several people have explained. Sadly you seem to be in WP:ICANTHEARYOU mode. Never mind. Please read the book and visit the talk page once again, at which point everyone else will once again explain top you there is no connection between the two fictional works, while there is a connection between the film, and several academic sources which specifically examine the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUND Smart! SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Checking to see if you are going to canvass the same user once again to come to your support isn't hounding - so the accusation is slightly less smart! - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should let an Administrator decide that. As well as if WP: Civility has been violated on the LTK talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No stalking, for the last time

Given your promise to stalk me, and the numerous links I have provided in the past, the next time I notice that you're continuing to stalk me, I will request an extended block for stalking me, per the "Wikihounding" section of the WP:HA policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Take it to ANI or resign as an administrator due to your paranoia and continuing baloney accusations against me and your clearly forgetting what Sphilbrick said over a year ago about my checking on any administrator. Don't forget your baloney accusation and twisting of what happened in Jan 2014 into something it wasn't[1]. Your lack of competence shows again when you removed the Marathon Classic from the Sylvania, Ohio article without bothering to check such an event existed. Plus its notable people not notable natives or residents. A competent editor who works on US city articles would know that Project consensus is Notable people or Notable person. I can point out probably a hundred cases of my rightly naming those sections. Don't forget all those editors you wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry. How many 20, 25? And the basis for it was not their editing but they being greeted by a blocked/banned editor. That disgraceful episode should have led to you and the other administrators involved all being stripped of your tools.

FYI I put a TB on Sphilbrick's talk page. Resign as administrator so others don't have to waste time on you....William 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

First, some general comments:

I am mildly surprised we do not see more issues at ANI or ARBCOM regarding harassment. It is quite appropriate that the community prohibits harassment. However, some actions which will be viewed by others as harassment are actually quite legitimate. For example, I try to spend some time addressing copyright problems. It is not uncommon to find that an editor who has abused copyright on one article has done so on other articles. In these situations, it is often necessary to look at the other contributions of an editor. From the point of view of the editor, who often doesn't think they are in violation of copyright rules at all, the sudden addition of several edits to a talk page by a single editor each alleging a violation policy may look like harassment.

The same can occur if an editor engages in or is accused of engaging in personal attacks. It is often appropriate to take a look at many of the editor's edits to see if the recent incident is a one-off situation or part of a pattern. This can be even more likely to lead to an issue, as almost by definition the editor might be in a foul mood, and suddenly someone is questioning them about many of their edits.

On the other hand, sometimes an editor will have a run in with another editor, and decide to retaliate by reviewing the other editors edits to look for anything which could be questioned. This can become stalking or wiki hounding and is unacceptable, but distinguishing the acceptable actions from the not just acceptable but necessary actions can be tricky.

We cannot simply create a rule that says it's okay if an admin does it but not if others do. We have a lot of admins doing a lot of legitimate work, but on some occasions, admins, who are people too, do go overboard. While we do have ARBCOM and ANI, it is my opinion that they should be reserved for situations that cannot be resolved by the respective parties. I think it is quite appropriate for editors to pay attention to what admins are doing, and that may include inspecting each of their edits.

Now, more specific comments:

Nyttend, I agree with WilliamJE that it would've been easy to drop "marathon classic" into the search box and immediately see that there was an article which would lead to wiki linking rather than removal. I think it was in honest mistake and, trying to imagine how I would handle it, I can't say for certain whether I would've handled it properly. On the other hand, William you went on at length about using "notable people" rather than "notable residents". I briefly checked the edit history and I don't think it was Nyttend who instered that term. If you simply meant that he should have affirmatively changed it, I think that's asking too much.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that William has substantial experience with articles about places and have no problem with him monitoring the edits in these types of articles, even ones he may not have edited before. I don't think that constitutes stalking, although, as noted before, I understand how you could look that way. I also think that, when we accept the admin bit, we also have to accept that we may be under special scrutiny from some editors. That just goes with the territory and is probably good for the project. (I did not look into the sock puppetry issue and do not plan to.)

On a positive note, I have specifically encouraged William to contact me anytime he find something that he considers admin abuse. I am happy to note in his been quite some time since he last contacted me. That's good news. I hope that we can drop this minor incident and just move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very good, but my warning stands: the next incident of stalking will result in a request for sustained sanctions for such, unless it's reasonable that WilliamJE monitors Rorke's Drift, minor train stations, and ANI threads in which I'm a minor participant. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thank you for taking the time to reply. The ANI thread that led to Nyttend blocking over 20 editors wrongly for sockpuppetry can be found here[2] and by checking his contributions with the filter User Talk.

Nyttend also threatened me[3] a few months back with these words- "Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me." The bold part is totally untrue[4] and Nyttend knows it.

As for Nyttend

1- One of my hobbies is reading military history. Earlier this year I completed Nigel Hamilton's 3 volume biography of Field Marshall Montgomery. While I was reading, I incorporated things I read into Wikipedia articles on Dai Rees, Brian Horrocks and others. My cleaning up See also sections predates me and you ever having any business.

2- I sometimes edit railroad station (I know I've done at least a couple on Thailand ones in the last 10 days. You didn't create those) articles especially if they are lacking establishment or disestablishment categories.

3- That ANI thread you edited twice and blocked 21 accounts by your own math due to it. Which were overturned in each case. That these blocks were done on flimsy evidence and at the same time permanently staining each user's account history was as I said appalling. Stronger adjectives, disgraceful being just one, are actually more fitting for what you and any other administrator did in those wrong blocks.

If you ever try making another false stalking accusation against me, look out yourself. I will point out every threat you have made towards me for any justified criticism I've made against you, plus the case[5] of you threatening me for supposedly making administrators do wrongful deletions. Please explain to SP how I was supposed to do that. The article was a cut and paste job, you didn't do your homework, just like with Marathon Classic in Sylvania Ohio, and for a while there were two articles on the same subject because of your actions.

Your posts to my talk page have more often than not been bad jokes....William 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't overdo the prod tags

"It's unreferenced" isn't a good reason to prod tag an article, just saying. Please do at least a minimal amount of searching to verify, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid reason for Proding. The article has to assert notability. It can't be done without reference(s). There are quite a few of these articles, and some plus others are in need of updating....William 15:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the need for updating, but that's an eternal problem... hey, only 9000+ articles in WP horse racing and maybe five active members here. But my understanding of WP:PROD is "uncontroversial deletion... with a valid reason for deletion..." - and WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." At least do a Google search or check out The Blood-Horse or something. I agree there is probably a lot of cruft in there, but there are also a lot of stubs created by people unfamiliar with how things are done - and a lot of older stubs. Lack of refs ≠ lack of notability; just means amateur editor, or old article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cork Airport

Hiya. I see that you made a change to the Cork Airport page again. Perhaps you missed it, but I had opened a thread to discuss that topic on the relevant talk page a week or so ago. It really would probably be a good idea to discuss any concerns you have there. I would note that, as per my comments a few weeks ago, I'm not seeing the project concensus (implied in your various edit summaries) that ground-side or runway incidents are not relevant to an "incidents" section. (As per my talk-page note, a significant number of other airport articles deal with these type of incidents in that type of section.) Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please....

Please stop harrassing me and treating me like a baby! You are doing this to annoy me now and make me remove comments on my talk page so you will eventually try and get me blocked!!!!! Please!!! RMS52 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am no harrassing you and you're the only person who can get yourself blocked. Your talk page is your own property as long as you don't edit what another author writes. Remove it entirely or leave it alone entirely Your edits here[6] and here[7] to Gatwick Airport amount to vandalism. You removed references, proper material and even photographs.

Can't you see a bomb not going off isn't the same as a airliner crashing. The airports have history sections, the Garda attack or a unexploded bomb can go in there. Calm down and think....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly doing this on purpose!!! Just reply at my disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS please if you want to reach an actual consensus, you just want to be right. I get it now.... RMS52 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations WilliamJE, you destroy the passion of a poor user (RMS52). The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He quit Wikipedia and I had nothing to do with it. It was his decision. RMS was clearly out of control, as seen by his vandalism edits to Gatwick Airport. I didn't make RMS do those. An editor who fails to understand a whole range of Wikipedia policies isn't a asset to this community....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the edits in LGW and I think that RMS52 had a little vandalize act. But other of this I think that you could be less bad and less offensive.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me offer my best good faith advice to you.

I think our interaction in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics was our first.

Please let me offer my best good faith advice to you.

You cited the outcome of 2022 Ryder Cup. I looked at the AFD. You initiated it. There is nothing wrong with choosing a subset of related topics, and focusing on them. But here is something I suggest you reconsider -- namely using the same cookie-cutter nomination for articles that are at very different stages of development.

I suggest other readers really need to know when you consider a future big sporting event well enough documented to merit a stand-alone article. Why wasn't your dividing line spelled out in your nomination(s)? Why wouldn't you spell out where you draw the line, when you were specifically asked to do so?

Another suggestion, if, after reconsidering your nomination of 2021 World Championships in Athletics, you now think you had a momentary episode of tunnel vision, and went too far, it would be an excellent choice for you to go back to that AFD and (1) own up to changing your mined; (2) withdraw your nomination; (3) optional -- state your new dividing line.

Many of us respect someone who can admit a mistake. It would certainly be best for the project if everyone admitted their mistakes.

OMG the irony. @Geo Swan: can't admit a clear mistake but a wants another editor to admit what he thinks is a mistake. I should make this a permanent example on either this or my user page. While you're at it, read WP:TPO. Which reads- It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. At present I'm not very optimistic about an admission of mistake being forthcoming....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In your reply you wrote: "First of all don't violate WP:CIVIL at AFD." I dispute I lapsed from CIVIL. Simple disagreement is not a breach of civility. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can't understand that saying 'over-ethusiastic deletionist' isn't namecalling and a violation of CIVIL then whatever else you may have to say is probably a waste of time. Namecalling and then refusing to fess up to it says plenty....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTHERE

Please stop making personal attacks of this kind [8]. NOTHERE is an absurd accusation to make, and appears to have been made in bad faith in support of a continuing grudge. The incident with the blocking of purported sockpuppets was an honest mistake made by Bishonen, upon which Nyttend acted in good faith. I was also involved, and unblocked most of them once it became apparent that it was a set-up by a long-term abuse account. People set such traps for us from time to time. The incident was discussed and resolved at ANI.

As for the rest of your accusations, I've read Sphilbrick's discussion and agree with most of it (including the need for admins to have to put up with a certain amount of extra criticism), but I see a recurring pattern of enmity. Your userpage is exhibit A, and looks like parts of it are straightforward violations of WP:POLEMIC. I've also read Orlady's comment that you quoted, and I don't think it means precisely what you think it does. However, once again, personal attacks are a problematic pattern for you. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of a comment on my talk page

I left a ping on my talk page but I'll briefly summarize here. I think both you and Nyttend are valuable contributors. I wish there were a magic way we can keep you from running into each other, as you are both improving the encyclopedia. I do understand why you are not happy with Nyttend; you know in a recent dustup I supported your position. That said, Nyttend is a real live human being, and I think it is unfair for your vituperation to remain so prominently on your user page. I believe it is against policy but I don't want you to remove it because it's against policy I want to remove it because it's the right thing to do. Save it off line if you need to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Since a decent interval has passed in which you could have acted on the requests from myself and Sphilbrick, I've removed what Sphilbrick rightly describes as vituperation from your userpage. Userpages are not safe harbors on which one may advertise and feed old grudges, and that section was a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Please do not reinstate it.

It's worth noting that I agree with a great deal of the material on your userpage, but it's not acceptable to use it as a shrine for personal grudges against specific editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What is polemic in this paragraph that you removed.

On January 30th 2014 a wikipedia administrator blocked me for 24 hours due to personal attacks. In edits leading up to that block that admin said my telling an administrator to either take it to WP:ANI or resign was a personal attack. In her next post to me, she mischaracterized the edits of a fellow administrator and after I pointed out her mistake, she said sorry. That didn't stop that administrator from blocking and that block was roundly criticized at my talk page and eventually overturned. At ANI one day later at least one editor asked what the personal attack was that led to my block.

Not one bit of opinion. Everything in that paragraph happened and I can supply the differentials. Orlady may or may not have said sorry but did admit that a statement of hers had not been entirely correct.

Another administrator who is a disgrace. I mean it. Polemic. How about TParis goodbye message, why not edit the polemeic part of that out? He was an administrator of course and the first rule is protect your own. How about the administrators who say they loathe certain people on their talk pages? Their messages are still up. Go to the article on holocaust denial and see what administrator user pages have links to it. The Bushranger is one. I know there is another but I forget who. I expect you to warn these people and remove the polemics otherwise your actions are living proof of a double standard at wikipedia being enforced by administrators against editors but not against their own.

How about Nyttend again? He is again accusing good faith editors of hoaxing right after he was taken to task for just that at ANI less than a week earlier. He violated WP:Scrutiny to come to your talk page in an effort to get me blocked. Nyttend threatened to get me blocked under false circumstances. He has violated countless policies and still out there with the admin tools and you won't lift a finger to do anything about it but instead worry about my User page. Besides your bias, your lack of competence is blindingly obvious. First you comment that Orlady didn't mean what you said. There is an avalanche of evidence otherwise including Orlady's own affirmation(s) of the statement in a subsequent. Two you asked me to remove NOT Here from my user page. Those two missteps are very serious errors for an administrator. You made misinformed statements because of ignorance. That's the best case scenario. Worst is that you'll defend an administrator against an editor no matter what proof there is that the administrator is wrong.

Lets not forget your accusations of me carrying a grudge when at the same time refusing to see Nyttend is. He makes wrong edits, I fix them, Nyttend accuses me of stalking. No its fixing an article that was edited incorrectly. Your reaction makes the worst case scenario seem to be the likely one.

In other words you're a disgrace. If you can only enforce wikipedia policy selectively aka not at all against a fellow admininstrator, resign as an administrator because you're why so many editors think so little of the corps....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015

Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!

• • USRD through the years
• • A goal for success
• • From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon

• • Article assessment over time
• • How to measure a WikiProject's load
• • Conflict over article titles

• • Arbitration case closes
• • Collaboration
• • Our valued contributors

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

College football statistical leaders

Dude, did you even check to see that:

• There are dozens of these articles on Wikipedia already, many of which have been up for years?
• The Wiki college football project has already discussed and determined that these articles are fine by Wikipedia rules (pretty one-sided vote actually)?

Why just indiscriminately tag articles for deletion without even asking the author or looking to see if there's a precedent about them? Jhn31 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm well aware of all of that. But why didn't you check to see if articles like these had been discussed before? There is a long-standing consensus of college football editors that these don't violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK Jhn31 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing waring template

WilliamJE, can you please acknowledge my question about the spurious canvassing warning template that you left on my talk page yesterday? Thank you, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop being insolent. You know what its about....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not being insolent. Please point me to the exact edit I made that you consider to be canvassing. Have you perhaps confused me with User:Jhn31, who you accused of canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#College football statistical leaders, and who I defended there? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I'm still waiting for a meaningful response here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WilliamJE, if you continue to ignore my requests for clarification, I will be forced to seek resolution at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully, we can resolve this on our own, but your meaningful participation is required for that. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please just remove the template with an edit summary of "misidentification" and move on. He didn't respond given the chance, so let's assume you are right. Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

Will you please explain why Elusive Magazine (http://www.elusivemagazine.com/about), with an online publishing history since 2006, is not a reliable source for the inclusion of Laurel Stovall in the Lovelock, Nevada article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

One photo shoot doesn't make her pass WP:NMODEL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

.

Nyttend

I've just spent quite a few minutes reviewing your history of interaction with Nyttend, and I'm not impressed, especially with the frivolous accusations you made.[9][10] I could indef block your account right now, but I'm going to give you a chance to reform. Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on. If you think he's hounding you, ask me or some other admin to take a look and see if that's the case. Don't trust your own judgement with regard to that editor; you are obviously very angry with him, and it causes you to see bad faith where there is none. Do you agree to follow my advice? Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Frivilous accusations. Please explain how this edit summary[11] by Nyttend does not violate WP:NPA? I can point to at least one more by him. Why don't you read conversations[12] and others around here before blindly jumping into a matter you know little about. Did Nyttend summon you? As shown above, he's used stealth tactics in regards to me aka go to Wikipedia commons to get me blocked when I have never once edited there and the matter is totally at this website? I am not afraid of you and fully know your reputation around here, Take me to ANI or explain why you can't enforce NPA against an administrator?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It never fails. Give somebody a little slack, and they make you regret it. No, all of your paranoid assumptions are false. I wasn't summoned. I just noticed your activities via my watchlist that includes thosands of pages all over Wikipedia. If you want me to look at your diffs, be polite. I have no interest in spending my time to help somebody who's trying to punch me when I've just let them off the hook. Jehochman ^Talk 23:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat, how does Nyttend's edit summary not violate NPA? Answer the question. Politeness works both ways, you threatened me with a indef block and you've never once posted to my talk page or involved yourself in this matter before today....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Some years ago another editor came to me and asked about the policy and shortcuts that were at the time called WikiStalking or WP:STALK. I coined a new phrase that would help distinguish between a creepy illegal activity -- stalking -- and what happens on Wikipedia when one editor follows another around excessively. The term I suggested was Hounding, and I created WP:HOUND.[13] Nyttend should use Hounding instead of Stalking for the reason I explained, but this is a relatively minor error. Old habits die hard, and Nyttend has been around for a long time. I recommend you forgive them for using that word and I'll mention that's there's a better word available. Meanwhile, let's talk about you. Could you please find another way to discover articles to improve besides looking at Nyttend's contribution history? One thing that would really help is if you looked at articles linked from the main page and helped spruce them up. These articles are changing all the time and many could use improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat, how does Nyttend's edit summary not violate NPA? Why is that not considered a personal attack but this[14] is considered[15] one by an administrator? Answer the question. Till you answer it directly or @Sphilbrick: arrives, I'm not answering here again. Florida Panthers hockey is about to start too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hockey, I love hockey? I've explained enough. Either you'll get it or you won't. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should take your behavior to ANI. You threatened me with an indefinite block for something that not one but two administrators in the last three months declined on. That and your refusal to take any action against Nyttend for something that blatantly violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and isn't the first case of him doing so either. In the latest case noone can argue his PA was provoked What's obvious is what is at play aka the First rule for most administrators around here- Protect your own....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is depressing. I was away all day, and came home to catch up on Wikipedia, and I find this.

I will be away all day tomorrow, visiting a seriously ill relative in the hospital, so my attention is elsewhere.

My immediate thoughts - William - please remove Nyttend from your watch list. Nyttend, you may have plausible deniability, but that sure looks like baiting. Surely you are better than that. William, he shouldn't insinuate you are a stalker, you shouldn't react. Jehochman, I doubt you have seen all of the back-story. Short version, William believes admins get special treatment. I promised to help make sure that doesn't happen. After watching the non=block of Neelix, and only minor restrictions, I'm hard-pressed to argue that admins are treated like any other editor. William, even if Jehochman didn't fully appreciate the entire back-story, his advice to you "don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on" is sound. With that, I'm signing off until Sunday night at the earliest, and Monday morning more likely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I too have happened on this. William, I agree that you really must avoid Nyttend, no matter what. I continue to see you nurturing old grudges. I happen to agree that admins are treated differently. There are some non-admins who are also treated differently than others. That doesn't justify your grudge-bearing, or, as Jehochman correctly describes, your hounding. Nyttend's choice of words was poor, but your attitude toward those you conspicuously dislike appears to be backed by real enmity, based on our previous discussions up this page. Just because I declined to block you doesn't mean that there's not a problem with your attitude toward other editors. I'm aware of the backstory, and my reading of it doesn't grant you license to pick at old wounds, and on that I must respectfully (a very important word) disagree with Sphilbrick. A little respect would be nice to see here. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Acroterion: We aren't so far apart as your comment may suggest. I am in full agreement that William is not entitled to pick at old wounds. He knows I have said this to him before, and it continues. I don't see this as a situation where one party is pristine and the other the sole source of problems. I've said before, and I'll say again that Nyytend, as a very active administrator, ends up as the target of some pointed barbs, most of which are unfair. That makes it understandable that one would be tempted to needle in return. But "understandable" is not a synonym for "acceptable". When we are granted the admin bit, we are given an unbalanced position with respect to power, and with that comes the responsibility to accept some crap we shouldn't have to, and to try to live up to standards that we don't hold all editors to. Fair? Probably not but making everything perfectly fair is an unreasonable goal. William and Nyytend don't see eye to eye on some exceedingly find interpretations of appropriate editing style; both the tremendous contributors to this project, and this project will do better if both try to stay away from each other.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Sp, since when is calling someone in an editor summary not a personal attack (Let me point out Nyttend did so without any interaction between the two of us. Someone up above said I shouldn't let Nyttend egg me on, why is that not considered disruptive behavior? I can make a good case that he's done it before towards me.) and since when is templating someone for it a reason for indefinite block against the complainer? What we have here are two administrators, Nyttend who feels he is free to intimidate and name call (and not towards me but in edit summaries last month twice called someone an idiot) and another administrator (Jehochman) back them up with more threats for complaining. Jehochman not knowing the backstory, but amusingly at the same time, has Nyttend's talk page on his watch list. If he monitors that page I don't see how he can't know what's going on between me and Nyttend. Did Nyttend message him? Nyttend has gone to extremes to get me blocked. Like messaging you on your WP commons talk page when the matter is totally at this website and I've never posted to commons EVER. Not to mention how he summoned Acroteriorn last month using his backup account in a way Nyttend says wouldn't use it. Orlady showed up out of nowhere too in January 2014. Too many coincidences (To quote from Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action") and contradictory behavior to assume good faith. I've repeated told Nyttend to take me to ANI. If he's clean and I'm the person acting bad, he should have a slam dunk there, right? Administrators around here are protecting the abusive ones and to do so are willing to threaten and intimidate those editors who stand up to them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Respect isn't automatic, its earned. Abusive administrators don't deserve respect and administrators who protect and make excuses for their abusive brethren don't deserve any either. From what I've seen of you, you fall in the latter group. Abraham Lincoln once said "if you want to test a man's character, give him power."...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RFAADVICE

It happens sometimes: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.(change visibility) 12:05, October 2, 2015 Soap (talk|TB| | contribs | block) deleted page User:MJ94/RfA Rationale (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace) (view/restore). A more appropriate ES would have been something like: 'Rm link to deleted user page'. Would have saved us some time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My browser is Firefox. If you're not familiar with that browser, whenever I start typing in the ES box it brings up older edit summaries I remove Seealso redlinks all the time. Done at least two in the last week, one just 30 minutes before[16] I did the edit to your article The ES I use is the same ES unless there is another more important reason for my edit. I link back to page for see also guidelines. That is to tell why I removed the link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW good advice article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: November 2015

Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter

Departments

• • Assessment roundup
• • Portal selected articles and pictures
• • KML Corner

Features

• • Constructing a road junction list
• • WikiConference USA 2015
• • The Junction template and you
• • Harnessing map archives

State and national updates

• • State updates
• • In other project news...

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Winter Park

Please understand that Wikipedia cannot be used to substantiate Wikipedia. I cannot create an article "Student7" with a link to 'Famous Wikipedians" in which I have embedded a link to my named article!

Supporting this concept, all articles are stand-alone. Linking is done to aid the reader, not the editor. Editors must supply the WP:RS tie (in this case) to the reason a name is in the list. Normally, the tie-in is not cited in the bio article anyway. Requiring editors to verify entries by reading yet another (uncited) article is pernicious and time-consuming. If the editor truly "knows" that X was born in Winter Park, that editor should easily be able to come up with a WP:RS to prove it. It shouldn't be that hard. Please see WP:NLIST & WP:LISTPEOPLE. Student7 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities is the relevant project for this article. They have criteria for notable people sections. There are variations on it per state too, some state projects allow entries without an article(but referenced), others (Vermont, Maine, Illinois, and Iowa if I recall correctly) require a wikipedia article for each entry. Secondly, read what WP:Citation needed says about mass tagging. Thirdly, I have worked tons of these sections. Making sure they are properly named, adding people to them, and deleting those who don't belong. Rather than mass tagging, double check everyone on the list. That would be a lot less WP:POINTY...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture these:

1)There are hundreds of notables in each state list of notables. Determining whether they are sufficiently notable to be at this level, is a severe editing problem in itself. I've got a rule of thumb for military and politicians that seems to work. Music? None. But I can't manually verify that each linked person ever had any connection with Vermont in any way. So I leave it up to "someone else," while the list of musicians gets higher and higher.

2) Following this, let's say I edit an article about someone who moved around a lot, Jim Morrison say, and claimed that he lived in Winter Park (no cite of course, because he probably didn't live there). How can you, as a responsible editor stop me from doing this for a handful of people that I wanted to insert into Winter Park? I am forcing you to edit/watch another article that you would not normally be interested in. And the Winter Park article is of manageable size. What about Orlando, which may have its own List article?

WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE seem clear enough IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Vote: Alexa Brown

I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories for years in Scotland

Please stop removing categories, as you did for example to 1793 in Scotland and 1792 in Scotland. All similar articles are categorised in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong, BHG, and therefore all the articles are wrong. WP:Categorization is very clear about not putting articles in both the parent and one of its subcategories....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please stop while we discuss this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:SUBCAT. It is not a universal rule, and has exceptions, particularly for eponymous categories -- see WP:EPON.

In the case of these categories, applying the principles of WP:EPON leaves them in several categories. There are other factors at play too, such as treating the decades categories as non-diffusing subcats, to assist navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There ain't anything to discuss, and if anyone knows it, it is you. This is not an exception Articles don't go in both parent and subcategory. We don't categorize an athlete from Chicago in both Sportspeople from Chicago and People from Chicago. Nor do we a 1961 plane crash in 1961 plane crashes and plane crashes of the 1960s and the list goes on. Therefore you don't put year articles in the specific year, and one for the decade, or one for the province and the country. Something that happens in Florida doesn't go in a United States category too if there is a Florida category. Scotland is a subcategory of Great Britain and GB is a subcategory of Europe....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

William, there is indeed something to discuss.

As a starting point, please read WP:EPON, which you seem to be unaware of. It is frustrating to try discussing the issue if you continue to claim that there are no exceptions to WP:SUBCAT, when there clearly are several documented exceptions.

Additionally, there are factors such as the existence of Scotland as a nation, which is different from the situation of Florida as as a state of the USA. Scotland is currently a non-sovereign nation, but please stop trying to treat it as if it was a state of the USA. Scotland's situation is more complex and more nuanced.

Please will you {{ping}} me when you reply, so that I don't miss your response? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Hi William. Just wanted to say that your current signature is quite hard to read; the non-linked text between your username and the link to your talk page/date obscures who is signing a post. I don't think it violates any rules, but it could be much clearer, it took me going back and forth over it a few times to realise that your sig wasn't part of the post the first time I saw it. Sam Walton (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pine City, Minnesota

Hi-I have not done too much with population estimates in articles either. I am not sure what I could do to help with this. A belated Happy New Year to yourself also. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Edward A. Warren

Sir, On this article, I agree with you regarding WP:Categorization, however, I disagree regarding Senator Warren's place in Prescott, Arkansas. Prescott was 'platted' (laid out, or subdivided) in 1873, shortly after construction of the Cairo & Fulton Railroad. Residents of the nearby town of Moscow moved the short distance to be alongside the rails. The cemetery at Moscow was used by the people of Prescott for several years after the railroad's construction and the Prescott City Cemetery was not conveyed to the city until 1880. In the Encyclopedia of Arkansas it is noted that Senator Warren "... devoted the rest of life to his law practice and his family," and that "he died on July 2, 1875, in Prescott (Nevada County) and is interred in Moscow Cemetery near Prescott." (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) Though perhaps difficult to reference, it seems illogical for the family of a lawyer and former Senator to allow his internment in a place that was not close to their hearts. For these reasons of logic, I believe that he was practicing law in the new town of Prescott, and is therefore a 'notable person' thereof. Respectfully. Curley Wolf (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Logic and what you believe, come under WP:OR. Get a RS that says Warren is from Prescott....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Providing an RS would be simple enough, (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) but there's a problem with Warren's date of passing. Most records indicate the year of 1875, but E.A. Warren is noted for starting Prescott's first newspaper in 1876, (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) and for having been a Colonel and Prescott's first Mayor in 1881. (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) His military history is noted on Wiki and in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) so it seems that the date of his passing has been incorrectly reported. Otherwise, there must be two men with the same name, in a fairly remote and little populated place, who are both practicing politics. One a town Mayor and the other an Attorney/Senator. Given the date problem, I see no way to prove without any doubt that these references are about the man. Do you suppose that his status in 1881 provides a good enough RS, (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) or could you propose a suggestion?

Please accept my apologies for the repeated references. I'll clean this up when our topic is resolved. In the mean time, I've found that Warren died in Prescott, at the home of his son, E.A. Warren Jr. (Reference-Cleanup by: Curley Wolf (talk)) It would have been his son who started the first newspaper and who was the first Mayor. Would the fact that he was living with his son provide the needed RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curley Wolf (talk • contribs) 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I have edited the article about Edward A. Warren to match the combined references therein. It appears unlikely that we will completely agree about the matter of WP:Categorization on that article, so I defer the edit to your WP:ADMIN status. As mentioned previously, I have removed the unnecessary references from this section of your 'Talk Page'. Best Regards Curley Wolf (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Prescott, Arkansas

The listings that were removed from 'Notable people' due to WP:RS have been moved to the articles 'Talk' page. Any help you can provide in clearing these listings will be much appreciated. Thank you. Curley Wolf (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The matter of WP:RS has been addressed. Best Regards. Curley Wolf (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Curley Wolf: Five things. 1- That minor league baseball player fails WP:NBASEBALL. Minor league players are rarely notable. 2- Please put the list in proper alphabetical order by last name. You have it in alphabetical order by first name. 3- Do not put names in bold. 4- Do no put names in brackets combined with a external link if they have no WP article. The external link should be an inline citation. 5- Remove any instances of where you have something from Find a Grave as a reference. Find a Grave fails WP:RS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Item #1 has been moved to Talk:Prescott, Arkansas. - Curley Wolf (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Item #2 has been sorted by Last Name. Note: It may be correct Sir., but (in my opinion) it's far less readable. - Curley Wolf (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Item #3 'Bold Typeset of names under 'Notable People' has been replaced with Italic Typset - Curley Wolf (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Items #2 & #3 have been reverted. - Curley Wolf (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Items #2, 3, 4, & 5 have been addressed. - Curley Wolf (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Curley Wolf: Talk pages aren't usually a place for surrogate articles. I have asked an administrator for an opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Curley Wolf: You alphabetized them but it is first then last name, just like they are in articles. Secondly, I am not an administrator and don't write that I am. I am an editor trying who wants an article to be proper layout per community consensus....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I'm reworking items #2 and #3. Looks better with a Bold Name and Italics Date. There's going to be a lot of 'Red Names' because there's no article for them on Wikipedia. - Curley Wolf (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of Notable people are not in Bold or italics. Look at Burlington, Wisconsin, Deerfield Beach, Florida, Rogers, Arkansas, Altus, Oklahoma, Independence, Louisiana etc etc....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Inline Citations that were linked per item 3 need to be detailed now. I'll work on that later. Thanks. - Curley Wolf (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD of Possible Interest

Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of people MOS

Could you point me to the consensus regarding the manual of style for lists of people from places? Thanks, Rwalker^talk 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting

You need to stop reverting me. You have no policy backing your edits, which go against Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't go against policy to put the section into alphabetical order, bulletize the list, and add what the person did that they were notable for. Napa, California, Hibbing, Minnesota, Washington Court House, Ohio, Needles, California, Raymond, Maine and Yreka, California are just a few of hundreds or thousands of NP sections I can point out.

Your telling me to bugger off can be used as proof of your committing WP:OWN as can some of your earlier reverts to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend

You may not continue to follow User:Nyttend. Do not look at their contributions. If you see them edit an article on your watchlist, do not go there and make your own edit. Next time you do something like this or this any administrator may block your account. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend is administrator shopping and @Sphilbrick: already said[17] on the matter- If the best argument you can make is that William likes to improve articles where you've contributed, we should be debating which barnstar to award not talking about a block. I repeat- Take me to ANI. Nyttend has a long history that really get him dysopped. He likes to intimidate editors who call him on his bullshit or anyone who criticizes him in any fashion and he's willing to get his cronies (He's working on at least his 4th one in my case) to do his dirty work. How about this threat of his to use what he knows to be a false reason to get me blocked-

"Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me". Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) referring to a January 31, 2014 block of me done by Orlady.

"No, you weren't harassing Nyttend." Orlady 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment", and it doesn't make any evidence of Orlady lying." Nyttend 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend's visit to your talk page to get me blocked for making edits to location articles also seems to contradict this exchange (Found in Archive 11 of my talk page) between he and Sphilbrick.

I know that William has substantial experience with articles about places and have no problem with him monitoring the edits in these types of articles, even ones he may not have edited before. I don't think that constitutes stalking, although, as noted before, I understand how you could look that way. I also think that, when we accept the admin bit, we also have to accept that we may be under special scrutiny from some editors. That just goes with the territory and is probably good for the project. (I did not look into the sock puppetry issue and do not plan to.)

On a positive note, I have specifically encouraged William to contact me anytime he find something that he considers admin abuse. I am happy to note in his been quite some time since he last contacted me. That's good news. I hope that we can drop this minor incident and just move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very good, but my warning stands: the next incident of stalking will result in a request for sustained sanctions for such, unless it's reasonable that WilliamJE monitors Rorke's Drift, minor train stations, and ANI threads in which I'm a minor participant. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why that doesn't earn Nyttend a block for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia I don't know except that it may be proof administrators are treated differently around here. Please try justifying why he shouldn't be blocked or that his statement of May 3 2015 is in any way true? Coming back to another administrator should be a sure sign of WP:GRUDGE.

I'm here to improve the enyclopedia. Your threatening me with a bullshit block- something that has twice been ruled on to the contrary by another administrator- is definitely a sign of protecting your own and not improving the encyclopedia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing- To threaten an editor with a block for making further edits to Wikipedia articles that would make them to consensus and meet formatting guidelines, and even once threatening[18] a indefinite block for the same type of actions, is a clear sign of an abusive administrator since that admin can point out nothing wrong with the edit and it is acknowledged that the editor who make the edits he was warned for has made over a thousand similar edits all over Wikipedia to either notable people sections or adding establishment categories. I'll take you to ANI if you ever make this threat again except for the claims of stalking/harassment by another administrator who has been shown to make false statements and claims of personal attacks that consensus said weren't personal attacks. Your threat above and your ignoring Sphilbrick's and Nyttend's previous statements are abuse. Don't plead ignorance either to the statements because there is a notice on the top of my page. If you didn't read it and failed to do as directed, you failed your duties....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful with template:Year in US state category

Hi. You want to be careful with {{Year in US state category}} - it generates a ...in the United States category which makes no sense before 1776, there's a separate Thirteen Colonies hierarchy for that. So you can't use a cute template, which means you have to be a bit more old-school for categories such as Category:1770 in Pennsylvania - see here. Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with Lewisthejayhawk

At this point, Lewisthejayhawk getting a ban seems inevitable. Is there anything I can do to help speed up this process? He keeps reverting my edits (manually, without hitting 'undo') and I feel that I would start to dig myself a hole if I keep reverting his edits while this discussion is going on. Also, thanks for the help. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zachlp: I did address what you wrote at ANI. Lewis works alot on articles (College Women's Basketball) that few other editors work. It doesn't excuse his behavior but a ban isn't going to be good for the project. A ban should be a last resort.

Right now I am busy. A Florida Panthers hockey game tonight, 7:30 mass tomorrow morning followed by my going to the gym, plus I am making last edits to my latest ebook I have written and will sell at Amazon. Other than my usual minor tweaks to WP articles, I am not going to have any time for an involved ANI thread or talk page discussions again till late tomorrow morning earliest....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what comes of it, thanks for your efforts on resolving this issue. Enjoy the game! Although I must admit, I'm a Flyers fan. So I hope you don't enjoy it too much. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)