Open main menu
The biopsy results for my 7th melanoma have come in. Dr Rabinovitz has gotten all of it. Less happy news- After 20 years of caring for me, Dr. R is retiring. I'll miss him
If I have left a message on your talk page, please answer there rather than posting here: I will have put your talk page on my watchlist. Thanks.
Under no circumstances, edit anything I post to this talk page. This also includes the deletion of any edits you have made if I have responded to them directly. In that case, strike them out instead. Thanks.
I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.
Notice to administrators. Before posting on any matter involving Nyttend and myself, please inform yourself by reading past discussions involving that administrator and myself dating back to October 2013 plus a late January early February 2014 ANI thread. Relevant discussions can be found in my talk archives plus those of Nyttend, Orlady, and Sphilbrick (both here and at Commons). Happy reading.



  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice for the future: Don't accuse anyone of lying. It's usually pretty much impossible to prove intent, and it's probably uncivil and an AGF violation to boot. If you have evidence someone just said something untrue or without foundation, you can say that. It's not uncivil. And it usually makes it easier to find agreement and get back to improving the encyclopedia.--Elvey(tc) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: I didn't accuse Nyttend of lying. I accused Nyttend of threatening to lie in order to get me blocked. Read the differential Nyttend even supplied.
Here are links to the relevant exchanges by Nyttend[1] and Orlady[2] and then Nyttend's threat at the very top of[3] to get me blocked for repeat harassment of him when in the words of the blocking admin and himself said it wasn't harassment and he backed her at the time.
Do you know that Nyttend in his pursuit of me has gone to an Administrator's Wikipedia Commons[4] talk page (Until this week when I uploaded a photo I've never edited at Commons) and used his backup account[5] to contact an administrator. Use of backup accounts are acceptable, but Nyttend edited from his main account one minute after using his Nyttend account. WP:Scrutiny applies, read the one and only reason Nyttend says[6] he'll use the backup for and compare it to his behavior, and I addressed this Acroterion at the time only to get rebuffed. Sphilbrick's reply[7] to Nyttend at Commons is quite interesting. He rebuffs Nyttend, pretty much saying he is irrational, and that rather than a block I should be getting a Barnstar. If you defend Nyttend's use of his backup, it is hard to defend a charge of forum shopping against him because he went to Acroterion for the very same reasons Sphilbrick had already dismissed.
Do you know I once tried to work with him on a article only to get rebuffed. Read this and this[8]
He's called me a stalker at least once[9] in a edit summary.
Nyttend has poked before. The original dispute that led to me being blocked which was overturned by Sphilbrick and which nobody defended the reasoning for, occurred Nyttend revived the topic after it had laid dormant for over a day. I'll supply the differentials if you really want to see it.
Note I supply differentials all the time. Been to ANI before, from both sides of a dispute.
Yesterday I saw both my physician about my malignant melanoma( I had a recurrence 6 months ago after 20 years of being clean. My talk page archives[10] and user page have some mention of my melanoma history) and to see a person in regards to an offer I am being made for the rights to one of my ebooks I've written. Good stuff, not so good stuff, and I have things to do today too starting around 30 minutes from now that will keep me busy till afternoon Florida time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
Sorry, you're absolutely right - I accidentally misrepresented what you accused him of. I apologize for the mistake and bringing up Nyttend on your talk page.--Elvey(tc) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cryptic 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you bloody joking? @Sphilbrick:, @Acroterion:, @MilborneOne:. I undid a improper close at WP:DRV and a administrator blocks me without warning and no explanation either. Where's the edit summaries?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You frivolously and repeatedly reverted a discussion closure, closed by a user with whom you'd previously been in conflict. What were you expecting? —Cryptic 12:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
What about WP:DRV that reads- "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. WP:NADC reads 'No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus. Those aren't frivolous. That's wikipedia policy.
I can not recall ever encountering this administrator before today.
Your block is totally wrong on various grounds. Be prepared to defend yourself at ANI as soon as it is removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Long-standing editor WilliamJE made two reverts and you blocked him without so much as a warning? Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you TRM. No edit summaries either and reverting something that both violates WP:NADC and WP:DRV. Read my edit summary....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Edits to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 19 - the only other ones by this user to DRV, so far as I'm aware - are also relevant. —Cryptic 12:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Not my only ever edits to DRV. Doesn't make any difference if they were. You haven't made any case for blocking me except that you don't like my opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Rather, you haven't made any case for reverting User:S Marshall's closure besides that you don't like his opinion. Anyone even minimally familiar with DRV would know that closures by experienced non-administrators are not unusual, and had you opened a discussion on WT:DRV as was suggested to you on the Sep 19 page instead of (to all appearances) waiting for his next close to pounce on and revert, you would have been politely told the same.
That said, I'll readily admit that I have no knowledge of your history with S Marshall, besides what's on the Sep 19 log; and I have no objection to an unblock, so long as you'll agree to stop reverting that entirely-proper close. —Cryptic 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It was a totally wrong closure on two points. Which I made in my edit summaries. Your lack of edit summaries in your reverts is appalling as is you lack of knowledge of WP:NADC which reads No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus.' A non-administrator had no business doing a closure here. See you at ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WilliamJE (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Cryptic blocks me without warning and without even a edit summary for reverting a violation of wikipedia policy. Never encountered him before and he has supplied zero proof of any disruptive behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After Cryptic's comment above, I have unblocked. WilliamJE, if you wish to contest the close on policy grounds after being reverted, I suggest you bring it up at an appropriate forum for discussion/clarification. And a reminder to all that a block is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort - talking should be the first move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What is needed is Cryptic being stripped of his administrator powers because this block is absolute bullshit. Cryptic could have just closed the DRV as a uninvolved administrator rather than restoring a close that is improper on three grounds. That's if they concurred with the ruling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Please don't inflame things, please just leave it with me and we'll get it resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Please take the advice of Boing! said Zebedee
  2. It would have been nice if you had included a link to the incident in question. Obviously, I can play detective and figure it out, but when you are asking someone to help, it is courteous to make it easy for them to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect to you, I don't need to drop the matter. This bullshit block is now on my permanent record at Wikipedia and I have said to you at least one time before how much I dislike that. I won't drop the matter. Cryptic needs to be put in their place. They obviously run WP their way, bad block, ignoring the clear definitions of both DRV and NADC, why should they be allowed to to do this again?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You're not your own best advocate on occasions like this, and you may place more emphasis on your block log than is warranted. That said, based on a very short look (I'm eating lunch) I think your actions were ill-advised and so were Cryptic's. I'll look at in more detail when I have a little time available. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
William, no one said you should just "drop the matter". For the record, you wanted me involved, but didn't have the couresy to link to the incident in question. I'm not a DRV regular, so didn't know about this incident. I have now found it by looking at ANI, but you aren't starting off on the right foot by requesting involvement without a link, and then misconstruing advice given to you. In my option "drop the matter" measn say nothing about this ever again, while the advice given was "please just leave it with me and we'll get it resolved". In other words, there are people interested in helping you, but you have to give busy people some time to check out the incident, especially when you don;t provide links.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
For me, I'd just let it go. It's abundantly apparent to me that the block was a poor one, and if nothing else, just cracking on with improving Wikipedia will make you feel better and expose the block for the absurd action that it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi you reverted my delsort on the above Afd. I put USA rather than Washington because it is a nation-wide award and not just a Washington state award. I don't see the point in reverting my edit when you could have just added Washington. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I don't see the point in complaining rather than fixing one's mistakes at deletion sorting. Apparently it is a habit around here. See the discussion thread just above this one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not complaining I'm just suggesting that there is a better way of doing it rather than reverting good faith edits from other editors in good standing. As it says here WP:STATUSQUO "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." This essay will probably help you understand why I am the second person leaving a message on your talk page about your reverts, WP:DONTREVERT. The complaint departement is not on your talk page but when you edit in a way that is not keeping with normal editing pratices then expect to get pinged! All other pages that are related to a subject in a particular country are sorted to that particular country. There may be specific guidelines about the USA but the delsort tool doesn't show that. I use it to avoid others having to go back over any Afd that I start when new pages partrolling and doing it themselves then rather than reverting wand leaving sniffy messages how about trying to be a little bit more diplomatic. This is obviously a subject that you feel strongly about which is fine but maybe being a little less bitey would be a good idea. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You just wrote 196 words saying you're not complaining. As I have wrote to you and North America, you rather complain than fix your mistakes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
you don't get it do you? I'm suggesting.that your revert was unnecessary and pointing to an essay that explains why and suggesting what to do instead. I call that constructive communication and not complaining. don't or won't understand the difference I can't really help you. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Your not complaining again. How about fixing your fixing your mistakes and reading what it says at the top of the USA deletion sorting page. Don't come back to this page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Iowa House of RepresentativesEdit

Hey, thanks! Kind of wished I would've read your edit summary about the See also section before I re-made the mistake in its inclusion only to have to remove it again! Woo, lots of extra work on my part. Thanks again, anyway. --Southern Iowan (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


Before you revert all my edits, can we please discuss? —GoldRingChip 15:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concert with WP:REDNO, but your reverts are removing much more than that. —GoldRingChip 15:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  • REDNOT says Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles
    • Thank you for replying and waiting on your reverts. ß None of my links are red. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:REDNO refers to creating links to "articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia" unlike the links I created. Many of these areticles can (and I hope someday will) be created. —GoldRingChip 15:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  • You are creating dozens of redirects back to the main article page. That is a loop and that is both ridiculous and not needed. Remove the links that are redirects or redlinks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "Ridiculous" to you, perhaps. They are needed because the aricle may someday be created AND because it then adds categories to them. There is no reason to delete links that are redirects; redirects are used all the time. I'm sorry I don't understand your "roof" question. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
      • They are ridiculous since it takes a reader right back to where they started. How would you like to be directed somewhere in your car and only to be right back at your starting point because it is a loop?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Saying something is "ridiculous" or "garbage" is not a great way to convince someone you're right. But still, I'm willing to discuss this with you. Many links do redirect back to the same article and that's not a good situtation, but it's only temporary until an intervening article is created. And that's their purpose. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Take it to the WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress talk page. I could have called them asinine horseshit which is what I really think of it. I am thoroughly sick of editors who can only read REDNOT where it spells out WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR when it clearly says See also and main article redlinks are not appropriate. You're not the first person to do it and not the first person who can't admit they were mistaken about REDNOT too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
          • And when are you going to fix the REDNOT violations you have created all over the place? About a dozen alone at United States House of Representatives elections, 1972. You can create things that violate guidelines but not fix them?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
          • I knew there had to be something covering this. Please read WP:SELFRED which says- Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made the correction to the 1972 article by creating all the missing articles. Thank you for your diligence. —GoldRingChip 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

New idea: Comment bracketsEdit

  • Instead of deleteing the {{Main}} templates, could you please just enclose them in <!--{{Main|…}}--> comment brackets, please? I am in the process of creating the articles to which the templates would point. However, it's a very slow process and I'd like not to have to recreate the Main templates once completed. It would be easier, for me just to remove the comment brackets. —GoldRingChip 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: You just reverted my edits without reading this suggestion, above. What do you think about it, please? —GoldRingChip 11:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

    • You restored[11] five main page links in that article, three of which were redlinks again AND NOT COMMENT BRACKETS. The edit was more wrong than right, so I reverted it. You want me to go through the laborious extra practice of putting in brackets. How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS. After all they are mistakes done by you in most cases?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, sorry. But what do you think about my idea of using comment brakets, please? —GoldRingChip 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
        • You can do it your way but I will do it mine. Both are valid....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I"m sorry I just don't understand you answer. Wikipedia editing isn't about "my way" and "your way," it's about devising good systems that work well. I'm proposing a way to hide them in accordance with the style guide without having to delete them. Such a method is used, for example, when images violate use guides… the images are hidden in comment brackets until they can be resolved. That's what I'm proposing here. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 14:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
            • So what do you think? —GoldRingChip 16:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
              • I already said what I think. You just don't like it. You have made numerous messes and have done very little to fix them and instead complain at me. As I said up above 'How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS.' I've seen very little action by you on that and at least a dozen pages are affected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
                • I've done everything you asked. What do you mean? Ever since you pointed this out, I've stopped using the {{main}} template and built article after article to employ the template properly. —GoldRingChip 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Dominicana DC-9 air disasterEdit

I finally moved the page back to its original title, and I even updated the infobox which previously read "Dominicana flight 603" to "Dominicana DC-9 air disaster" to improve the article further. And I apologize for the raging you saw in my previous reply. I was angry and I couldn't take it. If you haven't read my user page I'm autistic (I'm also impatient), also I added how I get upset. I hope you can forgive me for the page moving the raging, everything (except I think the damage is already done). Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC) UPDATE: You have not replied to me yet, which makes it hard to tell whether or not I'm forgiven, and that makes me nervous and anxious. Plus, I'm an impatient person. Sorry. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Evan CommagerEdit

Of course, notability is relative and your relative isn't my relative -- for sure. I had thought your problem was that the fact that the author was from Bennettsville wasn't substantiated, not that she wasn't notable. So you're welcome to your opinion here; I'm sure its intended 100% in good faith.842U (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Economic History of the Philippines under Ferdinand MarcosEdit

Hi there. Sorry I started out Economic History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos so short. I was still working out the kinks in the longer text and I felt I needed something online so I could gradually expand within the mainspace. (I have logistical reasons for not wanting this on my sandbox.) There's a lot more material, actually, but I just want to be able to vet it as I go along and let the article grow gradually as I struggle with the readings/references. - Alternativity (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing some cars by decade categoriesEdit

I don't get why you removed some, but not all, cars by decade categories (e.g. 1970s cars) from car pages. You seemed to pick earlier decades while leaving newer ones. What was your thinking behind that? I get WP:OVERCAT but each of those decades was equally valid. --Vossanova o< 15:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Vossanova:, @TKOIII: It is very simple- Overcategorization. Why you can't read my edit summaries and put two and two together is beyond me. 1970s cars is the parent category of Cars introduced in 1975 as I noted here[12]. It is overcategorization to put a article in the parent and its subcategory....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, the fact that the introduction year category was a subcat of the cars by decade category wasn't made clear in the edit summaries. Yes, it makes sense that a car introduced in a certain year would also be a car of that decade. I would personally prefer all decade categories be shown in the same place for consistency, but I can't really argue that Cars introduced by year doesn't belong under Cars by decade. Disregard my edits and I'll wait and see if anyone else cares or not. --Vossanova o< 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a mess, and we could even be best deleting these decade categories as unworkable.
See Renault 20/30. It belongs in Category:Cars introduced in 1975. Now if we remove (as you've just done) Category:1970s cars yet leave Category:1980s cars, this creates the totally misleading impression that this was "a car of the '80s" (it wasn't - the Renault 25 took over from both, from early in the '80s).
OVERCAT is all too often a simplistic and unconstructive rule, if applied as unchangeable dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit and hogwash. Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also.
As for succeeding decades of a car in production for multiple decades, Renault 20/30 was, I don't really care one way or another but as it stands cars produced over multiple decades, say introduced in 1982 and produced to 2002, are categorized as 90s and 00s cars. I have been leaving those....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, so you're not interested in discussing this any further. I get it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have answered everyone here. You just don't like the answer- 'Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also'. Seven Eight editors and counting don't grasp WP:OVERCAT unless it is spelled out in big red letters....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The first rational solution here is to make categories like Category:Cars introduced in 1975 as {{non-diffusing subcategory}} of the Category:1970s cars and leave related articles in both. Or second solution, rename parent Category:1970s cars to Category:Cars introduced in the 1970s and purge non-related articles from it. (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • At risk of giving you yet another target for personal attacks, I also question the value of removing these categories - for navigation purposes, someone looking through Category:1970s cars is going to expect to find everything there, and not have to browse through each establishment category as well. OVERCAT is a guideline, not policy, and I see nothing in it that would forbid this practice. --Sable232 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • OVERCAT is a consensus. Do we categorize Ford Motor Company Vehicle manufacturing companies established in the 20th century? No. How does making a category with more entries make it easier to navigate? Cars introduced in 197? connects to 1970s cars....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 08:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, WilliamJE. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163Edit

Now you're probably going to be unhappy by what I'm about to say, but please read this before you revert my edits. I manually undid those edits you made on Saudia Flight 163, however, I did look for an RS. The best one I could find was the report. I marked the pages. Also, I cleaned up the section to fix the errors and not make it look directly copied. I know the importance of citing sources (including reliable sources) and how there must not be OR. If you do still revert, then I apologize in advance for manually undoing your edits. I did read the edit summary though, so I knew why you undid it and how it could be fixed. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry ChristmasEdit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello WilliamJE, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Beasting123 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  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. RexxS (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello WilliamJE. You've been warned per the outcome of this complaint. You may be blocked if you edit this template again to remove the drone incident unless you have got a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A little help with formattingEdit

Russ SwanEdit

Hi, I saw you changed in the article Russ Swan,the category "Players of American football from New York (state)" for "Players of American football from Ohio". I disagree with this change, so I'm restoring the original category. This player spend his whole life in New York and that is where he developed as a player. That he was born in Ohio it is just circumstance and it doesn't have anything to do with his development.

  • Tecmo (talk · contribs) Nope. Going to school somewhere has never been basis for categorizing people as from somewhere. That is a long held consensus around here. What is your basis for his whole life BTW?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Hello, he lived his whole life in New York, so how can you say he is from Ohio, just because he was born there by life's circumstances and spent a few years ?Tecmo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • You didn't answer my question- What is your basis for his whole life BTW? Remember WP:V. Plus here[13] is just one instance of consensus in regards to where people go to school and where they are from plus what is regarded as being from somewhere 'notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city.' Please read it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical questionEdit

Hi. I have just nominated a category for discussion/deletion. As you seem to do a lot of these (more than I do, anyway), I wonder if you could have a look and double-check that I've done it correctly. I don't want to ask those I know will be voting as that may look like canvassing. Deb (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Chirs DulibanEdit

You keep making changes without providing a single proof that your logic for doing it is correct. I will reverse thiose changes.Tecmo (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I linked to the proof above. You aren't reading it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2015 New York poisoned turkey incidentEdit

As per your request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) it's at User:WilliamJE/Hoax. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

HOF CfDs?Edit

So what's with all the deletion nominations for various Halls of Fame? Seeing a bunch on horse articles, and not sure this is appropriate. Is there a change in guideline consensus or something I'm not aware of?? Montanabw(talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lute FreelandEdit

Hi - I saw an anonymous user added Lute Freeland to List of baseball players who died during their careers but without adequate sourcing. I was curious, so I've dug into this player via and have found a contemporary article from July 1902 that does document he died as an active player. What's less clear is what he died of; that he died "in a delirium" is the closest I've found so far. As his death was "the first time in the history of baseball in New Orleans that one of the local players died here during the season", I believe there's now sourcing to support his addition to the page; I'll re-add him—along with the sourcing—shortly. I wanted to leave you a brief note here with an explanation. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 12:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Two editsEdit

Hi William....Your edits to Aronberg's wiki page are fair, but I respectfully disagree with your deleting the year of the Corey Jones shooting (2015), which seems important, along with the race of the victim, which led to the national attention[1] of that case. Please reconsider those two important edits. Thank you. 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Bluesky500 (talk)Bluesky500

Reverted article - clarificationEdit

Hi. I'm not sure why you reverted my edits on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. I assume you are referring to the inclusion criteria in your edit summary where you say "above the edit box", but I don't know which part of the criteria I violated. Would you mind expounding a bit so I don't repeat my mistake? Thanks. Hadron137 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hadron137: You answered your own question. Read what it says above the edit box and contrast it with what you did to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The statement above the edit box doesn't appear when making mobile edits, so I wasn't aware of the policy. I've included a link in the page's inclusion criteria statement, and explicitly specified that entries must have corresponding articles. Not all list-class pages require entries to have existing articles. Hadron137 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added a section in the talk page, because, no, I can't read what it says above the edit box. At least not on mobile devices. Hadron137 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

AIA Flight 808Edit

Hello, William. I am the one who created the page on American International Airways Flight 808, and I would just like to give you my side of the story. My reasoning for my edits was that AIA 808 was so far the only crash featured on the show Mayday, which I enjoy quite a lot, to not have a dedicated Wikipedia article on it. As a fan of the show, I have noticed several instances of aviation accidents getting a Wikipedia page only after a Mayday episode about it aired, such as Reeve Aleutian 8, Emery Worldwide 17, and Fine Air 101. So I today I decided to make my own account to give AIA 808 a proper page. I taught myself all the basics on writing text, citing sources, adding templates and images, and so forth. I guess I should say that I am only a high schooler, so when I published the article I was pretty proud of myself, I showed it to my friends and teachers, and edited other articles to link to my newly created page. So when I saw that you had undid it all, I will admit that I was initially very angry and confused. At first I wasn't sure what to do, my only idea was to try and restore it and give a short reasoning for the creation of the article. You responded with "First of all- Mayday is a entertainment show and not taken too seriously by the aviation wikiproject. 2- You never edited before and suddenly make an accident article and the additional edits that go with it. You are quacking like somebody's sockpuppet around here"

Now at first this had only increased by anger and confusion, and my only thought was to try restoring my article again, but I realized this would only lead to an endless loop, if not something worse, so instead I took a closer look at your user page. It made me realize that you are just as much as a human I am. I looked into the Aviation WikiProject and it shocked me to see a whole other side of Wikipedia I never knew about. I can see that we share a passion for aviation accidents on Wikipedia, as you have made many significant edits on the subject, and I respect you for that. However, you have not treated me with the same respect. I will admit that I am a newcomer here, and if I did something that is not allowed, I'm sorry and would like to know what it was so that I will not do it again. But to undo the hard work of a new user with barley any statement and then refer to them as a "sockpuppet", I hope you can see why I would initially find it insulting. You have shown me that there is a lot more the Wikipedia editing than I had initially thought, and even though I think you could have been more respectful, I sincerely thank you for that. Until now I didn't know anything about thing like WikiProjects or even the talk pages I'm using to respond to you right now.

I think that I will not attempt to make any more edits or revisions on Wikipedia until I better understand it's inner workings, and that includes attempting to restore my article on AIA 808. But I still employ you, and the rest of the people over at the WikiProject Aviation and the Aviation Accident Task Force, to consider making a proper page on AIA 808, as you guys are much more knowledgeable on Wikipedia than me. You can even restore my article and I won't be angry, as I still think it is a notable accident, not just because it was shown on Mayday, but for it's unique circumstances and effects on the industry. Thank you for listening. LearyTheSquid (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "WilliamJE".