User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 14

About deleting the 1920 O/400 crash...

I didn't realize when I added this accident that it had previously been listed and then deleted, but I think the fact this crash falls afoul of the list guideline shows a weakness in the guideline. If you're going to remove anything, remove my addition of the 1930 Junkers F.13 crash, which was of a much smaller airplane in a later era. I had my own doubts about that one, but decided it was suitable because it was an in-flight breakup of an all-metal airplane, which would still have made it exceptional at the time. But that's a lot weaker than "first fatal crash of an airliner in regular commercial service", a fact which I've since mentioned when I undid your deletion. Not to mention that the O/400, despite its limited capacity, was still one of the largest passenger aircraft (or aircraft of any kind) in service in 1920. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You have to change the list criteria first. This does not meet it and will be removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi William, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 23:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Jesse Hickman

In the case of the 1962 Colts images, they were images sent to the Colt .45s during/after the expansion draft for the now-Astros, so they had the uniforms of their 1961 teams, which in Hickman's case was the Phillies. I rewrote the description to better clarify. Wizardman 21:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ban enforcement requested

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• As you know, this block is in response to your violation of the one-way IBAN, which was implemented by the community in response to longterm, grudge-based harassment. I have read your comments at AN/I, and I don't find your plea of innocence convincing. I've greatly expanded on that view at WP:AN/I, which I've linked to in your block log. You've already been blocked numerous times for this behavior, you've been threatened with an indef, and yet again I'm letting you off with a fairly short block. We can't keep cutting you this type of slack. If there's any indication of continued harassment after this, your next block from me will be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 20:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, William. I hope all is well with you & your family, & I hope your clean bill of health continues, this holiday season and in the years to come! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WilliamJE. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dave Aronberg

Hi William. You and I have worked together in the past on the Dave Aronberg article. Lately, an SPA has been adding a lot of material that I question the need for. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if you share a similar view? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) You did a good job editing out the promotional things in the article. I put Dave Aronberg back on my watch list in order to watch that SPA's future work if any on the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• So he got a new account. I left him another warning. His IP is in Palm Beach County. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed the switching of accounts. How do you know his IP? I'm PBC too. Should I open a sock puppet investigation? He's using multiple accounts and both are SPAs with possible COI. An ANI is another idea. Let me know....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• He accidentally logged out during his spree [1] . That's the only edit by that IP. He most likely is a sock of the other one. I'm going on vacation tomorrow, so I won't be around for a week or so. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like someone took care of that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622

FFS! Give editors a chance to write the article before nominating it for deletion - 44 minutes after creation is not on! OK, some editors post a stub to start with, others like to write at least a start class article at creation. Had you perfomed WP:BEFORE, you would have seen that there was a fine line between accident and disaster in this case. It is arguable that an article is justified despite the lack of deaths. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I have noticed this on other posts that you quickly nominate for deletion, please, GIVE it some time. Martinillo (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163

I am very sorry for this, you reverted to the last revision without further explanation. All of those names of the three pilot crew were true, that two Saudis and one American (Mohamed Ali Khowyter, Sami Abdullah Hussain and Bradley Curtis) on the cockpit. Even the flight times were also right just like other aircraft accident Wikipedia articles. It can be sure this source is proving to be right as proper standard usage of WP:IRS.

Safetyengineering.com is a personal website run by Jim Thomson and the essay is written by him. Self published websites fail WP:RS (For example, and it involves this very flight, check out this discussion[2] concerning another self-published article) and most of your detail on the flying history of the pilots are based on that. Also some of it is incoherent. To quote- "Although he was not a gifted pilot that his records showed him as a slow learner and needs proper training." The use of Although makes no sense. He wasn't a gifted pilot, then his being a slow learner would make be logical but with the word although at the front it does't. If he was a gifted pilot, then although would be appropriate wording. More importantly, the detailing on the flight crew is based on the Thomson article.

You mention WP:IRS. What you don't mention is part of that very same page, WP:RSSELF which reads- "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable." Mr Thomson wrote the article[3] and he identifies himself on safetyengineering.com's main page as the owner of the website....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Another thing- we don't list the flight attendants usually. Wikipedia is not a memorial. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

Write something coherent and properly sourced and add it to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Example of Swissair Flight 111 article includes aircraft, passengers and crew and accident details

Aircraft The aircraft, a 7-year old McDonnell Douglas MD-11, serial number 48448, registration HB-IWF, was manufactured in 1991 and Swissair was its only operator. It bore the title of Vaud, in honour of the Swiss canton of the same name. The cabin was configured with 241 seats. First and business class seats were equipped with in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE). The aircraft was powered by three Pratt & Whitney 4462 turbofan engines and had logged about 36,000 hours before the crash. Crew The pilot-in-command was 50-year-old Urs Zimmermann. At the time of the accident, he had approximately 10,800 hours of total flying time, of which 900 hours were in an MD-11. He was also an instructor pilot for the MD-11. Before his career with Swissair, he was a fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force. Zimmermann was described as a friendly person with professional skills, who always worked with exactness and precision. The first officer, 36-year-old Stefan Löw, had approximately 4,800 hours of total flying time, including 230 hours on the MD-11. He was an instructor on the MD-80 and A320. From 1982 to 1990, he had been a pilot in the Swiss Air Force. The cabin crew comprised a maître de cabine (purser) and eleven flight attendants. All crew members on board Swissair Flight 111 were qualified, certified, and trained in accordance with Swiss regulations under the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Flight timeline The flight took off from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport at 20:18 Eastern Daylight Time (00:18 UTC, September 3). From 20:33 EDT (00:33 UTC) until 20:47 EDT (00:47 UTC), the aircraft experienced a thirteen-minute radio blackout, which was later determined to be due to communication radios tuning errors. At 22:10 Atlantic Time (01:10 UTC), the flight crew detected an odor in the cockpit and determined it to be smoke from the air conditioning system. Following the captain's request, the crew turned off the air conditioning vent. Four minutes later, the odor returned and the smoke became visible, prompting the pilots to make a "pan-pan" radio call to the air traffic control Moncton. ATC Moncton, which is in the province of New Brunswick, controls air traffic over the neighbouring province of Nova Scotia, including most flights en route to or from Europe. The pan-pan call indicated that there was an urgency due to smoke in the cockpit but did not declare an emergency as denoted by a "Mayday" call. The crew requested a diversion to Logan International Airport, Boston. They then accepted ATC Moncton's offer of a vector to the closer Halifax International Airport in Enfield, Nova Scotia, 66 nm (104 km) away rather than Boston, which was 234 nautical miles (433 km) further away. At 22:18 AT (01:18 UTC), ATC Moncton handed over traffic control of the plane to Halifax Terminal Control Unit, a specialized ATC unit managing traffic in and out of Halifax. At 22:19 AT (01:19 UTC), the crew requested more distance for the aircraft to descend from 21,000 feet (6,400 m) when they were advised the aircraft was 30 nautical miles (56 km) away from Halifax International Airport. At 22:20 AT (01:20 UTC), upon the crew's fuel dump request, ATC Halifax diverted the plane south toward St. Margaret's Bay, where it was safer for the aircraft to dump fuel but still within 30 nautical miles (56 km) of Halifax. In accordance with the Swissair checklist entitled "In case of smoke of unknown origin", the crew shut off the power supply in the cabin, which also turned off the recirculating fans in the ceiling. This created a vacuum in the ceiling space above the passenger cabin and induced the fire to spread into the cockpit, cutting off the power of autopilot. At 22:24:28 AT (01:24:28 UTC), the crew informed ATC Halifax that "we now must fly manually", followed by an emergency declaration. Ten seconds later, the crew declared an emergency again "And we are declaring emergency now Swissair one eleven", which were the last words received from Flight 111. The flight data recorder stopped recording at 22:25:40 AT (01:25:40 UTC), followed one second later by the cockpit voice recorder. The aircraft briefly resumed transmitting secondary radar returns from 22:25:50 AT (01:25:50 UTC) to 22:26:04 AT (01:26:04 UTC), at which time the aircraft's altitude was 9,700 feet. After that only primary radar returns, which do not provide altitude information, were received. The captain did not return to his seat; whether he was killed by the fire, asphyxiated by the smoke, or killed in the crash is not known. Flight data recording shows that engine three (the right hand engine) was shut down due to an engine fire approximately one minute before impact, implying that the first officer was still alive and continued trying to fly the aircraft until the final moments of the flight. Due to this, the plane banked to the right and started to fall from the sky and due to the smoke the pilot was inward of the turn. At 22:31:18 AT (01:31:18 UTC), the aircraft struck the ocean at an estimated speed of 345 mph (555 km/h, 154 m/s, or 299 knots) and with a force of the order of 350 g, causing the aircraft to disintegrate instantly. The crash location was approximately 44°24′33″N 63°58′25″W, +/-300 meters.

ApprenticeFan work 12:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally understand but I can improvise with the aircraft details were given at the time of the accident, but not with the names of pilots listed above as I given with the agreement of WP:MEMORIAL, including the described flight attendants. ApprenticeFan work 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy section needed

Hi! In this diff you mentioned a policy briefly but didn't note the location of the policy (we don't list those who died unless they are notable. An article would establish their notability.) It would be most helpful if you could point us to the text of this policy with the other article exemption, so this mistake won't be repeated in other Aviation articles. Please advise. Thanks for your help! Spintendo      19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Ahunt:, @MilborneOne:, @Samf4u: would you like to chime in on this? This has been discussed at the talk page of either WikiProject Aviation or WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force or both on multiple occasions and these editors are also aware of it and can say the same thing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's only an essay but I believe the guidelines at the Passengers section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) should be used for all aircraft accident articles. If the cockpit crew is mentioned in an official report (NTSB for example) than they may be in the article. No flight attendants, pursers etc. and certainly no passengers that don't have a WP article. - Samf4u (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that content coverage within an article is not governed only by those essays. Rather, it is also goverened by the principle of due weight and other content policies. I understand if there may be several different discussions all covering the guidance you mentioned, and you may feel put on the spot to point me in the right direction. That being said, I don't expect to be shown the yellow brick road to all of them. My faith remains firmly in your ability to point me in the right direction of at least one of them. Please advise. Spintendo      05:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been given answers multiple times. I can't help it if you don't like the answers. The section had obvious multiple problems that an experienced editor should be able to see Including

1- WP:NOTINHERITED

2- Unreferenced

3- Barnes and Noble (Or Amazon) author page (which BTW said the person died in 1980 not 1979 the year Flight 191 crashed) doesn't establish notability.

4- A photo gallery and an article published by their employer aren't enough to establish notability.

5- One entry is a case of WP:SYNTH. A website that mentions a John Wear at the University Wisconsin and a second personal geneology website (Read WP:SPSRS]] Personal websites are not considered reliable) that lists a J Wear of Madison among the dead. Two sources are being combined to say this is the same person in the article's victims list. Read WP:SYNTH.

Furthermore they all don't have an article and there are the guidelines that are cited above. Not having an article is a basis for not listing a person at multiple WikiProjects not just Aviation. I'm not answering here anymore. Go here[4] next time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would add that you need to consider WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:UNDUE. Lists of non-notable people are not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash

This is the second or third time I am writing regarding you nominating these wikipedia pages immediately after crashes. You constantly do it and use the same arguments (more specifically) WP:NOTNEWS, is everything really not new to you? This was a very tragic accident as were the ones you nominated for deletion previously. Myself and other wikipedia users have become very annoyed of this and I would love for you to address it, rather than just push it under the rug. Thank you! Martinillo (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Recentism, WP:Recentism, WP:Recentism. Did you read some of the keep votes. Notability is inherited, Every fatal aviation accident is notable? Neither of which is true. As I said, WP:Recentism, WP:Recentism, WP:Recentism...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Israeli categorisation

Woah woah woah, please do NOT remove from Category:Israeli footballers even if they appear in Category:Israel international footballers - it's l;ong established that players belong in both! GiantSnowman 10:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ghanoum

The article and history are here : User:WilliamJE/Gabriel Ghanoum. Templates are all broken, of course, but the history is there and will be preserved once you move it to article space. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you. Be careful what you wish for. I should have remembered that saying before messaging you. A broken reference, another that's from blogspot, another from a page that goes on forever. work will have to be done before I publish it to WP (Though I could just publish after finishing the translation and fix the problems gradually) and right now I'm writing what will be my 24th ebook for sale at Amazon. BTW his French wikipedia photo, can that be used? I can get a photo of Father Gabriel without any difficulty though I might take a few days to six weeks. He's chaplain at a hospital less than two miles from our home and my wife sees him sometimes in between the masses he says that we attend if its 7:30 Sunday morning. This wouldn't be the first article I've created on someone I met. Bruce Nickells used to be business partners with my father when I was a teenager and Catello Manzi is a cousin of mine but I 've seen neither of these two in about 40 years. They're both harness horse racing hall of Fame members. Notability was clear....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I imported and translated a bunch of French architectural articles a few years ago and was struck by the poor sourcing. I've imported a few German articles, but my German isn't really up to par, so I relied heavily on machine translation and rewriting from sources, so the end result had almost nothing left of the original. As for the image, it seems to be under a compatible license, so it should be freely usable here. It would be best if it was copied to Commons, but I haven't looked at the paperwork required to do that in a while - I'll see what's supposed to be done. The French WP seems to keep a lot of images for itself.

I know a few people who have their own articles too, but haven't done much with their articles except to revert vandalism.

Happy Easter! Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That image is on Commons, so it should be fine. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_54j8NAvZl3JSu6V&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

AFD of Organization of Iranian American Communities

You performed a good faith revert on the restoration of a previous page of the article Organization of Iranian American Communities that is currently at AFD with the edit summary "AFD isn't closed yet". Per my summary I reverted your edit because it is within the scope of editorial consensus to edit the contents of a page during AFD discussions per WP:EDITATAFD. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

West Virginia State Capitol and 1925....

The specific building of the current State Capitol complex in Charleston WV was dedicated in 1932. In 1925, per Cass Gilbert, and per the Cass Gilbert Society was under construction in 1925. Here is the Cass Gilbert Society link on the matter http://www.cassgilbertsociety.org/works/wv-capitol/ The book, for the state capital is named Cass Gilberts West Virginia State Capitol, has an ISBN of ISBN-10: 1938228464 . I own a copy, its accepted by the WV State Culture and History division as pretty much the reference on that building. In 1925, as I recall it from research, they had just completed one of the wings, the building itself NO. Please do feel free to take a look at the above data. It is a fascinating read. But to state its a 1925 building is false.Coal town guy (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Coal town guy: Then why does the article have the category 'Government buildings completed in 1925'? If its completed in 25 it is an establishment in 25....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I could add any category to any article. How about the greatest LGBT center on the world??? Or places in The United States that use the letter W??? It is not valid. Its falseCoal town guy (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked you a question nicely. Now you behave like this. Why do I feel this is a case of WP:OWN?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am a very nice person, we use typing as a medium of communication. I am sorry. I honestly am startled by your response. I am a volunteer, I am not an emotional tampon. I am very very very very very very very very very very very very sorry. I do not own the article, I own nothing here. Accusing me of owning something because you were wrong is not my issue, nor my problem. Never will be, never has been. I am wrong plenty of times. I was wrong to expect that you would have read the data that others and myself reference. I was wrong to expect that being correct, or honest were things we strive for. Knock yourself out. Go nuts. Add any category you want. GO FOR IT! I am a volunteer just like youCoal town guy (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion sorting reversions

I noticed that you have reverted some of my deletion sorting edits (diff, diff).

Regarding Micayle McKinney, the subject has resided in three U.S. states. As such, it is typical for deletion sorting to occur on the general United States page, rather than performing del sorting separately for all three states. As such, I have restored the U.S. delsort for this deletion discussion. This procedure in these cases has been used by several del sorters for several years, such as Gene93k and others. As such, I'm inviting Gene93k to the discussion here for their input.

Please consider discontinuing leaving editing summaries stating user names and that they should "know better" than your decree. I am of the opinion that you are mistaken regarding this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Also note that performing deletion sorting for three separate states for a subject will simply create unnecessary multiple listings at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You put them in the three states. United States Deletion sorting page is not the place for the AFDs. You know it. The notice at the top of the page is quite clear- 'This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories.' You are doing things wrong and you should know better and like others you refuse to fix your mistakes. Was this[5] really so hard? Really you rather complain at my talk page than deletion sort correctly. That says a hell of a lot about you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The state discussions used to be listed on the same page, and listing several states for the same topic used to make the page very long. I didn't notice that the states page was moved, so that's what is what. My aim here was to discuss, not complain. I see your point, so all right then. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Cosmos season

I've read your incredibly entertaining user page and gained immediate respect for you. At the AfD discussion for the 2018 Cosmos season, you voted to delete the article. I've been frustrated over the past few days, because I have raised the point that the 2018 Cosmos season has received coverage from ESPN and NBC Sports, and no one supporting deletion has addressed that point. The team has played only one match so far, so I'm not sure what folks expect to find. In my opinion, there has been significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the club. That means the content of the article meets WP:GNG. Is it your opinion that WP:NSEASONS supplants WP:GNG? At WP:NSPORTS, it says that the guidelines on that page are meant to help make determinations about WP:GNG, not to override the general guideline. Do you find the coverage inadequate to meet WP:GNG? The word significant is explained as meaning nontrivial, but I think some people are taking it to mean widespread. I'm not sure, since no one is addressing the point I've made. People are just ignoring it and saying the article should be deleted. As I said on the AfD page, the article is titled incorrectly, and it should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. However, the content is clearly notable. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Alvin Duskin

You removed the deletion tag from Alvin Duskin, but didn't help to clarify anything. I can't even tell if Alvin Duskin is a person or a company. The article is one sentence with 6 different subjects that don't seem to be related to each other at all. If you remove the deletion tag, please address the reason it was tagged. Natureium (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts on Folsom, New Mexico

I'm going to report you for edit warring and piss-poor behavior. Smallchief (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Smallchief (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

delsort rhode island

Sorry all the bungling, I confused my self as to what you meant. Thanks, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump divorce

The editor created an article on the so-called Trump Divorce in order to circumvent the removal from the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Thanks for the heads up. I put the AFD at the proper deletion sorting pages- Law, Florida, Politics. Should it go at Language to cover WP:NEO also since you mention it? I will chime in at AFD tomorrow. My bed time is near. I get up around 5:30 every morning and hit the sack around 9:30 most nights....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

• Personally I don't think Language needs it, but that's up to you. I'd have CSD'd if I could have. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• As it turns out, he was already blocked and this was a sockpuppet. Blocked again and a couple of articles deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

About WP:AFD/USA

Since we usually use scripts to sort articles, so most of people don't see the top of the notice. So please be patient if someone sorted wrong, and you just correct them, don't be angry, thank you! Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicely put. Glad to see civility here. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WilliamJE reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: ). Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't tried to refute my arguments (Most likely you haven't read them) or take it to WikiProject Baseball as I said. So call what I do silliness and you go crying to your fellow admins. Says a great deal about your character, BHG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

William, you are up to four reverts at Category:Rayne Red Sox players. Will you reply at WP:AN3 and promise to stop warring? There may still be time for you to revert your last change. Avoiding edit wars is not that hard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.  Longhair\^talk 02:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21649 was submitted on May 27, 2018 17:15:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability...

We've probably crossed our paths somewhere or my memory might be playing tricks.....Anyways, since I saw your name being mentioned at WP:GOLF, can you please help in the assessment of notability of Draft:Atthaya Thitikul.Thanks,~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, @MatthewVanitas: Thitkul passes WP:NGOLF with flying colors. She won a professional golf tournament NGOLF criteria #4, and she has made the cut in a women's major championship #5. The article needs a rewrite because of NPOV issues but notability is clearly established....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks:) I'll be indulging in a re-write within the next few days and will be accepting it.Again, thanks for your comments. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

US Deletion sorting

You come across as under the impression that the US deletion sorting page is only for entities/subjects originally from the US. However, there is no precedent for this type of strict interpretation of what should be on the page. Historically, the US deletion sorting page is used for articles that are US based, and when the articles don't expound further upon which states. It is also used for multinational companies that have offices in the US and the state(s) are not stated in the articles. The page can also be used for political matters that concern the US as a whole. Other examples exist. I am concerned that you have been claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of the page with your own ideas, but there is no consensus anywhere that I can find stating that listings at US deletion sorting can only be for entities originally from the US. Furthermore, all you are ultimately accomplishing with your interpretation is limiting Wikipedia's readers and editors from learning about US-related topics that are being discussed at Afd. Please seriously reconsider your stance, and take a look back at the revision history for the page to note the precedent I am stating. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

He had undid my sorting here --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A corporation with its US office in Florida. US deletion sorting says at the top of the page- "This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area." Can you read that or my edit summary[6] that removed it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't following that page so didn't see that edit. I only saw the summary what you wrote when removing the US sorting from the deletion request. "Not a deletion sorting for this page." --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The article itself didn't say it's in Florida, hence me sorting it to the main country catagory. But looking at the website it indeed say that the office is located in Florida. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement that Evans is american is unreferenced. What don't you understand about that. The LATimes article says he is back at his day job, the bbc article says he is from Suffolk and worked in London. I am not claiming ownership of the page, just cleaning up the bullshit deposited there by people every day. You full well know what it says at the top of the page. BTW, you're justifying your edit with WP:OR aka 'If he's an American, he's likely an American citizen now.' OR and unreferenced. Shame on you for coming after editors who want to keep up the shit around here when you're committing bs yourself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your overall pattern of editing on the page, not only this one discussion about this one topic. I am concerned that your stance is that only subjects and entities originally from should be listed on the page, which unnecessarily excludes many topics. Looking through the Revision history for the page, it is peppered with your edit summaries qualifying my concerns, such as "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US", "He's from Texas so he doesn't go here", ":Her being from the United States is unreferenced. I looked for references and found zilch." Subjects are often active in other areas of the US than the states they are originally from. Furthermore, and importantly, there is no consensus anywhere for the page to be minimized as you have been doing, such as limiting entries to subjects/topics only originally from the US. Also, please don't attempt to "shame" people who are concerned about your actions, and try to be more civil. There is no precedent for deletion sorting entries to be based upon side-research as you have performed; it's based upon what's actually in the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you'd even done the slightest research, you'd found these edits here[7] and here[8], which first added American marketing businesspeople and american to the article when the original person who started the article never said they were American. A wrong category edit and then someone resummarizing the article used the category for the basis. You're wrong, so why don't you fess up and stop bugging me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And what's this edit[9] but more mistakes by you. It was at Florida already[10] and no longer at US[11] when you added it. Doubly wrong and what do you have to say @Northamerica1000:?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: please see also his edit [12] Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I don't understand why the use of this category is so strictly enforced. I have never seen anyone else revert or reply in such an agressive manner about deletion sorting categories such as was done here User_talk:WilliamJE#Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award. That award is open for students from any state in America but because it is awarded by a research centre in Seattle for some reason it can only be included is that state's deletion sorting page. I don't see any reason why 1 person gets to decide what is and what isn't allowed on that page as they don't WP:OWN that subject and don't seem to have any special rights. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Also it's pretty arrogant to qualify any action that doesn't conform to your own particular reading of a subject as a "mistake". Dom from Paris (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And just to conclude I was reverted a second time and admonished here User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States. There was nothing in the article or the sources that suggested the subject came from any particular state or anything about where her business is based but I was basically told I should have done more research to find out where she was born lives or lived to define what sorting category I should have used. And what about if I find nothing? Does that mean there is no geographical sorting allowed? Dom from Paris (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please everyone be civil about this. Swearing and personal attacks help no one. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

People accuse me of arrogance but I admit when I make a wrong edit. Here[13], here[14], here[15], and here[16] for just four examples. Haven't heard Northamerica reply yet. And who's arrogant?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the edit summaries I see seem hostile and there are a number of swearing and name calling in the thread above. This is just a general reminder for everybody to perhaps calm down and have a cup of tea.--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Nb. I have drafted a proposal to create guidelines for the U.S. deletion sorting page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting § WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America guideline proposal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

AN3 complaint

Hello WilliamJE. There is still an open complaint about you for edit warring at this link. The complaint is that you constantly remove AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America when your theory is that they don't qualify. Since the report was filed, an editor has tried to solve the general issue by opening a thread at at the Deletion sorting WikiProject. Are you planning to participate in this effort to create a guideline and to abide by the result? If so, you might want to comment on the situation at AN3, to assist whichever admin closes the report. I notice you have edited recently, since the discussion was opened, but so far have not participated in the guideline proposal. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: I am busy at the moment with getting my next ebook out for publication. My time here has been limited for two days and will be so till I submit the story to Amazon. I'm not ignoring anything, just don't have lots of time. (If you want I'll private message you with links showing my author page and a message dated July 5th at a website saying I will have my next book out later this month) Sometime I will respond to North's thread but now sure when....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't take much time for you to respond and agree to abide by whatever consensus is found for deletion sorting. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Here it is July 13, you are still editing and you haven't responded about consensus. Should I close the AN3 report assuming that you won't cooperate? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Still editing= Only so far as my watchlist goes and then if its an obviously bad edit. Yearly aviation accident templates are on my watchlist and the 2nd edit is related to the first. 1981 aviation accident article doesn't get put in 1999 template (My 5 edits there are more than any other editor. Next highest is 3) and vice versa. Ronald Rich AFD was started yesterday when I drank my first cup of coffee. (Proofreading when only first getting some caffeine in their system isn't a good idea if a writer wants to sell ebooks.) A check of my edit history shows my first edits are around 0600 Florida east coast time and my last of the day around 2100-2200. That's if I'm not too busy writing and preparing a novel for publication. I have 23 at Amazon. Dear wife gets up for work M-F at 0530. She attends daily Roman Catholic mass before starting work. We seldom sleep past 0600.

I looked at the thread. What use is there in me replying? Everyone is in agreement. I'm either rubber stamping it or a lone voice of dissent. Not going to comment and not going to cause trouble....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So, you are agreeing to accept whatever conclusion the other editors may reach at the USA delsort guideline thread and you will abide by that standard in your future edits? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes I will....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary "If a[n] (sic) author born in New York, his s corp ebook publisher registered in Florida, thinks up a new story while on vacation in Georgia, about two people turned into dung beetles in Mississippi by a Wizard's apprentice whose boss has shops in many locations, where do you deletion sort it? Believe it not the story exists............" I would file it under the US category as well as any of the other states deletion category where he has significant recognition. For this, probably New York and possibly Florida as editors that patrol those category might know more of the author and chime in. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN3 complaint with the wording that you will 'accept whatever conclusion the other editors may reach at the USA delsort guideline thread and will abide by that standard in your future edits'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaning behind your signature

What's the meaning behind your signature and the complains department being on the roof? Just curious. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

I made an edit to Saudia Flight 163 and pointed out that it was Saudi Arabia's worst aircraft accident and the L-1011's worst accident. It got reverted apparently because there is consensus not to include such information. Can you tell me where this consensus comes from, maybe a discussion where it was established? Thank you. Funplussmart (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here you go.[17]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you. Funplussmart (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Revisions

Care to explain the second revert you did on Kyle Drabek that I did? I added the reference on the second revision that I did after you first reverted it was from the leagues official page transaction list. If you are going to revert how about you check out what I did before you make a bad revert. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 02:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You added something without a reference. The bad edit was your own....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The second edit I added the reference? Yet you still reverted so again what was your logic? I cited the leagues transaction page in there. So again the mistake was yours. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Charles Burnett III

In the future, please try to create more accurate edit summaries. You were right to remove the page from a category that no longer existed, but if you had stated that that was your reason the first time, instead of attempting to invoke WP:DENY, I wouldn't have reverted your edit. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 17:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• @The Nth User: I was accurate. DENY applies to any edits done by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Check here[18] and here[19] which is what we have here. Then the category which was created by the sock was deleted[20] per DENY after I edited[21] the Burnett article. You're the one who should edit a page more carefully and not violate WP:REDNOT by creating a link to a category that don't exist....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit to Swissair Flight 316

Hi,

You reverted my edit to Swissair Flight 316 where I had changed it to Category:October 1979 events in Europe with the comment, 'Since when is Saudi Arabia Europe?'. However the accident took place in Athens, Greece (ie in Europe), and the flight was an internal European flight, by a European Airline. It had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, so I am not sure what the problem is? Dunarc (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If you looked, I reverted[22] the edit admitting my mistake and why it happened....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Dunarc (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)