User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 5

RE: reply at Niteshift's page

Saw your reply, to do a DRV: just paste "{{subst:drv2 |page=Eunice Penix |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eunice Penix |reason= }} ~~~~" to the top of this page (filling in a reason, of course) and you'll have opened the DRV. You could probably go to WP:RFD as well. ANI would probably just tell you do do a DRV. Hope this helps, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

J. B. Cox

Why didn't you address outcome of prior AfD in your nomination? That usually will torpedo you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible premature close.

I thought Niteshift was the OP in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_on_Eunice_Panix_and_Administrator_Mark_Arsten, so I closed it, however, I now see you were the OP, and may feel it was prematurely closed. I think the DRV is the right way to handle the narrow question, and an RFC would be warranted if you want community input on Mark's ability to be an administrator. However, if you think continued discussion at ANI is the best option, I won't object if you revert my close.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I believe you prematurely disclosed it. The purpose of ANI was addressing a blatantly wrong closed AFD and the behavior of an administrator and how all of this calls into judgment his duties....William 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to revisit whether a close was wrong. I don't agree it was blatantly wrong. I suspect we can find hundreds of examples where many editors choose "Delete" as an option, and redirect is the final decision. However, as I said, if you think this is the venue to discuss an admin, feel free to revert my close. If you do so, please identify what action you want to happen. Are you proposing a desysop over a disagreement? Or are you looking for something else? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redirect with only one supporter and seven saying delete isn't blatantly wrong? This is another case of why I don't trust administrators.(In the last week I've had two act snippishly or rudely towards me which they even admit afterwards) You can't see or see the obvious. You go undo the ANI but I'm already guessing its a waste of time. Administrators will protect their own but simple editors do the same, bang talk of boomerangs or blocks placed on a whim without all the facts or deliberate ignoring of them....William 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the merits of this particular close, and don't plan to, that's for DRV. Your assertion that it is blatantly wrong because of the vote count is simply not supportable. You have over 20k edits, so you should know this. Many editors narrowly choose either "delete" or "keep" because that's the easy choice. In many cases, those are the only viable choices. If there is a viable redirect, that may be better than a delete, but not considered by the contributors to the vote. If seven said "delete, and opposed to a redirect" then you might have a case. That didn't happen. Someone reported that several are fine with the redirect. How many are opposed to a redirect? Even if there are several, that's relevant information for a DRV. It is not an abuse of power to see a possible outcome that might satisfy most of the participants. I'm not planning to reopen the ANI, because I don't think there's anything to discuss; to repeat myself, if you choose to do so, I won't complain, and if something else does, I'll support your right to do so. But I'm not planning to re-open it. My serious suggestion is that if the DRV supports the conclusion that the original close was flawed, then you should decide whether additional action is needed. If you don't want to wait, that's your call, but if it doesn't go well, it isn't because of admins supporting their own.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You do protect or support your own as seen by another administrator who closed[1] the ANI ignoring half the reason of why I brought it there. If administrators can't police themselves, you're they're little better than the vandals who disrupt this website....William 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand how hurtful your allegation is? If your allegation is directed at me personally, please respond with relevant diffs. If you are lumping me in with a group, that's even worse. I don't recall that we've ever interacted, so I am at a loss as to understand why you would say these hurtful things.

I've now looked at the redirect, and I am stunned that you are so invested in this. There is a short blurb about Eunice Penix in the article. Why on earth do you find it so terrible that a reader searching Wikipedia would find that, if they searched for Eunice Penix? We have some information on the woman, more than a passing mention, and you want to pretend that we don't? Why?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seven people thought Penix failed WP:Politician. Which is the criteria for an article. BTW, you again did not do very good homework. The only reason Penix is mentioned(other than in a listing of city officials) in the Dade City Florida article is because User Jax0677 edited[2] her into it yesterday after the DRV started and the AFD result. Jax0677 is the creatorof the Penix article and the one and only editor in the AFD who argued[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eunice_Penix&oldid=408156663 for a redirect.

As for administrators not doing nothing about their own, I've seen it at ANI in the past and the behavior and recent events have done nothing but reinforce my opinions. Mark Arsten's self confessed reasoning for the AFD result is shabby at best and incompetent at worst and should call into question his deciding any AFDs in the future. However administrators don't want to discuss it but bury it instead after a couple of hours at ANI. That so sounds like Marc Arsten who shut down and buried a talk thread 13 minutes after someone he disagreed with last wrote to it....William

You took a cheap shot at me, which might have been a mistake, but instead of clarifying, you follow it up with another. That's rude. After you address that issue, I'll discuss the redirect issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we start over?

You have some concerns about admins protecting their own.

So do I. It happens, it deserves serious discussion, and solutions.

On that point, I suspect we agree.

However, in the middle of making your point, you accused me of being part of the problem. Can you understand why I didn't appreciate that?

I would like you to either substantiate your claim with some evidence, or retract it. If you supply some valid evidence, I'll pledge to improve. If you retract it, I'll engage in a discussion about admin abuse, and how to address it.

Is that fair?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What's not fair is an administrator is being allowed here to abuse his authority and rather than discuss it or do something about it, other administrators close discussions before any debate can take place. Especially when you consider this[3] too. To summarize he wrote an email to a WP editor saying '"You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."

Nothing happened to him there, and that's a far worse situation than his overriding consensus at the AFD. Do you know there is another AFD he dubiously closed but reversed after a DRV was started? This can all add up to a strong case that he doesn't have the judgment to be a administrator. It needs to be talked about, that's for sure. Not swept under the rug which makes it look like administrators are protecting their own. Neither you or I are ANI virgins and we've both been around that often dramatic page if only as bystanders. So I assumed you're doing more of the same protection racket, and if I'm wrong I apologize. After one ANI where I accused a administrator of being involved and having administrators defend that person, I have lost almost all faith in administrators to rule on their own.{There are two administrators, MilborneOne and The Bushranger, who I often go to for advice or to tell them some issue here at WP.) Because at least two of those same administrators had ruled in the past the absolute reverse under almost an exact same set of circumstances.

Ok I apologize. Now what do you think about Mark Arsten overall and does his closure of the Eunice Penix AF. Three of the seven editors(Me, Niteshift36, and Tupelo the typo fixer who said delete have voiced their unhappiness at the DRV with Mark's actions. Granted one of the seven, has also said they're fine with the redirect.

BTW, today is a busy day for me, so my time around here is erratic and not for long periods. So pardon me if I don't back to quickly....William 16:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No need for talkbacks, I'm watching your page, and composing a response.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This— I assumed you're doing more of the same protection racket, and if I'm wrong I apologize may qualify as the world's most tepid apology. I didn't ask for an apology, I asked for evidence or a retraction. I didn't get either, but I'll show GF and respond.

As for the first incident, it doesn't sound acceptable. I haven't seen the email, nor the context, and I assume you haven't either. I can't image a set of circumstances which would make that email acceptable, but where I would fall on a range of possible reactions (formal censure, temporary desysop, permanent desysop) would depend on the background. Mark gave permission for the emails to be posted, MF declined. Do you support sanctions in the absence of evidence? I don't. I wish MF had published them, because if he published them and the community refused to act, it would be support for your claim.

As for the DRV, if the closure was so awful, we'd be seeing a SNOW Overturn. Which is not what we are seeing, unless you want to argue that it is just admins closing ranks. Except that I see non-admins in the "endorse" column.

I accept that you disagree with the decision to redirect. But that's all it is, a disagreement. You are trying to make the case that this is administrative malfeasance, but the DRV is not close to supporting that thesis.

I understand you are busy. So am I. In fact, I am so overwhelmed with work that I shouldn't even be doing this. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but don't feel the need to rush. If you need to take a few days, Id appreciate a talkback, otherwise, you can assume I'm watching the page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Won't send any more talkbacks. Feel free to delete I did off your talk page. I do the same thing after getting one.

Mark admitted to saying those words. Some form of punishment should have been handed out. Administrators should be held to a higher standard not a lower one because they should know what is right and wrong. I've blogged for 7 years and have continually said the same thing about law enforcement. Nothing, not even a short term block, was done to Mark and that's dead wrong. If I'd done the same, Toddst would be screaming for me to be banned from here. Double standard! I've never used WP to spew four letter words but I was blocked for 30 days. Why didn't Mark get at least that much? As an administrator he should have gotten double. WP administrators ignoring the sins of their own and this does harm to WP more than any vandal can do. Vandalism can be wiped away, the appearance of double standards can't and that calls into question this website's integrity.

The closure of the Eunice Penix AFD sets a bad precedent, and I've said this already at least two times. Why have a AFD discussion if a administrator is going to ignore the consensus and impose his own outcome? We might as well scrap the discussions and appoint administrators to make the decision as soon as a article is nominated for deletion....William 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that he admitted to using the words. He did apologize, but that is not enough. Something more severe should have been handed down, in my opinion. However, exactly what constituted appropriate punishment depends on the context, and Malleus declined to provide it. That raises a red flag. I suspect the answer is simple, that MF felt there were no possible mitigating circumstances, so context was not needed. However, I have seen many, many situations where the original statement of facts seemingly lead to an obvious conclusion, but the fuller context lead to a different conclusion. I don't think that is the case here, because I fancy I know Malleus well enough, but that's not a basis for a fair review ('We want all the facts, except when we think we can trust you, in which case, we'll work with incomplete information Do you think you can get that written up as a policy?) MF declined to raise it at Arbcom, and declined to share the full contents of the email, despite having permission to do so.

You expressed surprise that Mark did not even get a short block. While I would have been in favor of some sanction, (barring some mitigating scenario in the email which I cannot imagine), a block isn't one of the sanctions that seems appropriate. What basis? Please don't cite personal attacks, as that refers to attack in Wikipedia. This was outside Wikipedia. That doesn't excuse it, I think admins should be held to a higher standard, and we don't think it is acceptable for an admin to use email in such a way, but that leads to questions about his status as an admin, not as an editor. I don't see anything in the blocking policy that applies. Did I miss something?

As for the Eunice Penix AFD, you and I see it differently. I judge the consensus to be that the article at the time did not meet our standards, and should not exist. It was deleted. In accordance with consensus. In addition, the search term was converted into a redirect. This is not incompatible with the consensus. You think it is, I think it isn't. I'm not alone. I'm sympathetic to those that see the decision as a supervote, and argue that the support for a redirect was not sufficiently strong to allow the admin to make that call. However, this is nit picking. It isn't a blatant close against consensus, it is a close call that some will see one way, and some will see another. If you are trying to make the case that Mark does not deserve to be a sysop, you need much better evidence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How about [Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment|Off-wiki harassment]] where it reads 'Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia.' If wikipedia external email isn't a link, I don't know what is. Nothing got done to Mark, and that was the worst possible outcome. Administrators didn't do anything to one of their own in a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. So why any editor not think Administrators protect their own?

Back to the redirect and what Mark once said[4] "To go against the numerical consensus would require a strong arguement." To be frank- That don't add up. If numerical consensus is the basis for his decision, 7 delete to 1 redirect gets changed to 5 delete 3 redirect based on the two who said 'Delete or redirect'. Numerical consensus isn't the answer unless Mark can't add. Of course he can add, but he sure did ignore consensus. If a administrator can ignore consensus at the same time using a rationale that doesn't back up his actions, why do we have AFD discussions? He went overboard, and like the business with MF, his own words do him in....William 16:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, you are right, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for a block (or other sanctions). (I'd be unhappy if it weren't the case, but I didn't see it in my cursory review of blocking policy). Yet neither you nor I have seen the email, or anything leading up to the email. Had the email been submitted as evidence, either at AN or Arbcom, absent mitigating circumstances I cannot image, I think it would have resulted in a sanction. However, you seem to believe that a sanction is warranted when the recipient of the email posts a (possibly)selectively edited version, and explicitly declines to share the email, even after being given permission to do so. I don't believe in handing out severe sanctions based upon a characterization of evidence by one of the parties. Show me the evidence, and I'll support a sanction. Decline to share the evidence and I'll assume there are some mitigating circumstances. (I can imagine a scenario in which the recipient may choose not to make the material public, either because it is so vile, one doesn't want it in public view, or because it contains some personal details which should not be shared. In either case, there are options, such as sharing it with trusted neutral parties, but that wasn't even alleged.) You are writing as if you think I am opposed to sanction on admins. I am not. I am opposed to sanctions when the recipient declines to share the evidence with anyone. MF appears to believe that context isn't relevant. I disagree. I wish he had shared it, I think sanctions would have followed, but that ship has sailed.

As for the redirect, you are convinced that a redirect is very different from a delete. A closing admin choosing keep when the opinions tally 7 delete and 1 keep needs an extremely strong case. On that we agree. But a redirect is not much different than a delete. Someone at my talk page was arguing they are identical, and I don't go that far, but a plausible redirect is not much different than a delete. I'm not comprehending why you think a redirect of the name Eunice Penix to a section of an article which mentions her is such a bad decision. Have you even made such an argument previously, is there something unique about Eunice Penix that would preclude a redirect or is it this admin? I'm honestly not following why you are so invested in opposing this redirect, is it that the redirect existence is bad for Wikipedia, or are you solely concerned about the process issue?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten admitted to those words, the off-wiki policy quoted, plus WP:Civil tells you to walk away when faced with incivility. No matter what the context, Mark Arsten violated WP policy and nothing was done.

Yes I'm concerned about the process, and an editor(Jax0677, the creator of the Eunice Penix article) trying to take ends around. He did a merge of the Penix article to Dade City, Florida even though that wasn't the result of the AFD. That edit was undone. Back last summer he argued strongly to keep then redirect O. J. Murdoch and in spite of 'delete' at the AFD[5] which was confirmed at a DRV[6], he made the Murdoch page into a redirect. It was deleted, after I discovered[7] the redirect. Note the AFD over Murdoch was a much closer thing than Penix, but the DRV was unanimous which it sure isn't with Penix.

Unless you have something more to say, I think we pretty much covered this subject. Want to wish you a happy holidays and happy new year. I'll add you to my short list of administrators to turn to when some issue at WP pops up. Page protection, possible copyright violation, or advice or clarification on some policy. There was an IP who kept putting a quote into Friedrich Fromm sourcing it from a book. I checked the book out of the library, and the quote isn't there. So I took it out of the article. The IP hasn't returned(He does have a edit history other than Fromm) but could sometime in the future and I wonder what he'll think of my edit. Maybe I'll need you then. Cheers!...William 00:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mengele

• I'll correct it right now, and I appreciate you for bringing it to my attention. Mandsford 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Britannia AL Ryansock article

G'day from Oz; it so happens that I was in the process of editing the Britania Airlines article earlier today when my other half said that we had to go do something, resulting in me leaving home with the editing window open. I have copied it to your Sandbox, as well as the Austrian article, which I am going to nom for a Speedy del; do with them as you see fit! Compliments of the Season to you, and don't let the bastards get you down, but remember WP:CIVIL - don't get yourself blocked again. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate, and I hope you have a great holiday season. Out of the 5 articles Ryan created, I think I'll end up recreating all of them one of them at least but not the Aeroflot flight. Other than its entry at ASN, there is next to nothing on the flight. It would be a permanent stub and I don't really like creating articles like that. Britania was recreated by another editor, as was LANSA Flight 501 which leaves the Aeromexico one....William 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Austrian Airlines Flight 901

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Austrian Airlines Flight 901, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19600926-0, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Austrian Airlines Flight 901 and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Austrian Airlines Flight 901, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Austrian Airlines Flight 901 with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Austrian Airlines Flight 901. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Austrian Airlines Flight 901 saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Petebutt (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have cleared the copyvio tag by removing the investigation section, it will need to be reworked at some point and some information added, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Formula One season

Hello William, you may be interested in the little discussion I began on the page. Happy New Year! Airplaneman ✈ 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

mma afd

Hi. Thank you for your contributions. However there seems to be a mistake, as all of these fighters you nominated clearly pass [[WP:NMMA} with at least 3 top tier fights each. Please remove them. Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

They are CSDs, not AFDs. Secondly you haven't shown in any way how they're notable....William 11:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideology of Safavids

Hi! could you please check this page out weather it has got any grammatical mistake or not? thanks a million. Alborzagros (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did like you asked and made a few word changes and some corrections. Hope they meet with your approval....William 16:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2013

Volume 6, Issue 1 • Winter 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Wikidata Q&A USRD Cup returns Project looks ahead to new year	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, FL, and PA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

Was Usertalk:WilliamJE/Archive_5 a mistake? It's showing up in article namespace, as opposed to User talk namespace. Just to let you know :) It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 21:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hello William, I noticed you listed this discussion at Sports. Where you have already listed it at a more specific Sport's delsort like Ice hockey it unnecessary to add it to Sports itself, infact Sports is a Meta-list so it's actually already listed there. For example something like motorsport or horseracing goes under Sports but others that have their own shouldn't be listed their. So I've struck/crossed out the sports delsort & removed from here. Regards ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

i see your point

I see your point in not having a debate in the Ketunuti article.

However, there are facts of the case, such as video surveillance, that you cut out. This has nothing to do with your argument. Please be careful. SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've called for an administrator. What you added back is in the article already....William 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see one is there already. What is their phone number? You have a secret hotline to them? Whoa...you are a big shot! SupportMelissaKetunuti (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Funny ^Pika! 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced talk page

I have moved what looks to be a cut and paste of your talk page from the mainspace (at Usertalk:WilliamJE/Archive 5) to User_talk:WilliamJE/Archive 5 (misplaced). I'll watch this page in case you need any further assistance. - TB (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Ferrante

I've replaced your tag with a multiple A7 G11 G12. The whole thing's a copyvio. You have been accused on the talk page of a 'filthy racist plot' and a call has been made to sack you. That was just for an A7. Wonder what I'll get when he sees the current state of play and my reply... Keep up the good work - and do a quick Google when the text looks too good..... Peridon (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the first time an editor played the racism card against me because I nominated something for deletion. Check this[8] out also. Today's editor doesn't know much about Wikipedia. BTW I didn't see the Copyvio problems in this case but have caught them a couple of times in the past. You keep up the good work too. Cheers!...William 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Cohen & Gresser LLP

Hello WilliamJE, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Cohen & Gresser LLP, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone A. Mitchell

Speedy declined. A medal recommendation is significant. Dlohcierekim 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He fails WP:MILNG clearly. A recommendation isn't a medal. The article also looks like a copyright violation. I AFD it....William 17:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The copyvio has been removed (twice). Speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 is only to be used where there is no assertion of significance. This is apart from notability. Certainly being nominated for a medal is significant. However, you are correct in questioning the subject's notability. The place to sort it out is AFD. When an article asserts significance but the subject is still not notable, it is best to apply a WP:PROD. Please do review WP:CSD#A7 and WP:PROD. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boulevard Drive-In Theatre (Allentown, Pennsylvania)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Boulevard Drive-In Theatre (Allentown, Pennsylvania), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Pakhomov

Hi, I was a little surprised at your A7 deletion tag of Mikhail Pakhomov as members of Parliament are usually deemed notable, even for somewhat smaller countries than Russia. So saying that someone was a member of Parliament seems to me an assertion of importance. I nearly deleted it G10 as it was unsourced and negative, but decided it was better to source it myself. Hope you don't mind, feel free to AFD it if you think members of the Russian Parliament don't meet wp:politician, but please don't use A7 for articles with a credible assertion of importance, even if you think that AFD would probably deem them not quite notable. Cheers. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The article was unreferenced when I CSD it. Try refreshing yourself on WP:BURDEN before coming to me instead of approaching the editor who created an article without one single source for what he had written. Bamler2 isn't a neophyte editor either and should know better....William 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced is not a valid reason for an A7 deletion tag. If the chap was still living it would have been valid to BLPprod it, but BLPprod only applies to biographies of living people. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Again WP:BURDEN where's the proof the person is a member of parliament, isn't alive, and was murdered? A article creator can just say anything then is what you're basically saying.

Get off my back and try giving Bamler2 a hard time instead. I'm not the one who created an article WITHOUT ONE SINGLE SOURCE OR THE EDITOR WHO SEEMS TO BE FORGETTING ALL THE MAKE BELIEVE THAT'S POSTED TO THIS WEBSITE DAILY AND INSTEAD GIVING A HARD TIME TO PEOPLE WHO TRY TO PUT A STOP TO IT. Since you can't address Bamler2, you're only reinforcing my very low opinion of administrators around here. That rogue or rouge administrator category link at the bottom of your user page might apply....William 16:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't say either that unreferenced articles about dead people haven't been deleted because something about it told an admin. that it was possibly made up in spite of assertions of notability. For example, there was an article created a week or two ago about a child being murdered. It was CSD. Child murders have been the subject of WP articles but somehow and administrator just didn't find the article credible without a source. Just an assertion of notability is deemed not enough by admins around here even if A7 says otherwise. Maybe you should be building the case against them to be desoped since they don't follow A7 to the letter. Then I have often said the administrators here protect their own/ignore admin. abuse[9] and that rules are only applied to the little people....William 17:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We admins are supposed to use our tools within the policy that all editors can take part in setting. If you want to change policy to broaden A7 so that any unsourced new article can be speedied then feel free to make your case at Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletions. As for your reference to "Make believe" articles, I was able to source this to the Daily Telegraph, and I also saw a story on the Daily Mail website. I really don't think that this is a "make believe" article. It was of course an unsourced article about someone being murdered, so if you'd tagged it G10 then I wouldn't have disputed the tag. Unsourced negative articles need to be deleted or sourced PDQ. ϢereSpielChequers 18:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Palm Springs list

Say, William, that List of people from Palm Springs, California has a section for the different towns in the Coachella Valley. The list is not confined to Palm Springs, and the lede states that fact. Some thought & discussion has taken place over creating a List of people from Coachella Valley article, but no real progress has been made. I included the other towns in the PS list because the whole area is popularly known as PS. (People living in the valley will differentiate as to what towns they are from.) Outside news reports typically show people as from/living in/dying in Palm Springs (because that is what the area is globally known as) when they are actually in the neighboring towns. So, how does my rationale comport with WP:Category_names#Residence? Regards. – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One of two things need to be done with that oversized list- Either rename it to a title such as People from Coachella Valley or Break off some of the other communities into their own lists. I just recently cleaned up the People from Youngstown, Ohio which had people on the list from areas around Youngstown. List articles like I describe stick to a well defined area and the article's title should display it....William 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I put the CV names in my sandbox. It is just shy of 11k bytes. At the moment, though, a simple cut & paste into a new article won't work because of the multi-refs. (I've wanted to create a CV article all along, but just haven't moved beyond my good intentions.) Maybe this weekend. Probably will do so by the end of the month. You've inspired me! – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Kristijh

Sorry for the trouble. I should have reported the vandalism on the spot. I don't know why I waited the 11 minutes. I forget. I could have been called away on an off-wiki thing.

On the upside, Kristijh got the message, and hopefully it will have the same effect as a block and he will change his ways....hopefully. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lu

Thanks for the patrol work, WilliamJE. I hit "save page" before finishing anything but the infobox. I posted as per yours in Lu's talk section, but wanted to offer my reasons here and apologize again for the too-speedy save. Here's the talk: "Both Lu's books have been well-recieved by the New York Times and elsewhere, are the basis of a film-series by CBS Films. Additionally, there are pre-existing wiki pages for Lu's novels Legend (2011), and Prodigy (2012)." Thanks again. Zoidbergmd (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

She's notable all right. I saw just the link to her website in the original post. New articles that are only sourced by the subject themselves is a automatic red flag. What I should have done is look at the contributor's history. A editor with a long history of edits is less likely to be promoting a non-notable person and if I still had any doubts, pop you a message like you did here....William 14:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all; the error was on my keyboard side. Thanks for the quick follow-up. Zoidbergmd (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What a kind and thoughtful gesture! You just made my week. Thank you, WIlliam. Zoidbergmd (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your ANI report

According to your report, the editor in question was disrupting Wikipedia by WP:Blanking their own talk page which is completely allowed. I would think that by now you would know that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you had read what I written properly you would know I wrote- Editor User:Anna Frodesiak posted warnings, here[10] and here[11], after both the first and second blankings of Renzoy16's user page. Kristijh then blanked[12] the Anna's two warnings BEFORE doing the third blanking[13] of Renzoy16's user page.

I didn't say it was wrong for him to blank just that he knew about the warnings(Because as you should know blanking a talk page message is considered recognition a message was received aka 'The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents.') before blanking Renzoy's page a 3rd time....William 17:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 plane crash in Washington

Just for info as I know you like to keep an eye on these I have proded 2013 plane crash in Washington. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

To save time, I AFD it[14]. More than likely somebody would have taken down the PROD.Kristijh has created 4 articles in the last week on not notable plane crashes....William 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood, no problem. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Undelete requested for List of city council members of Saginaw, Michigan and List of city managers of Saginaw, Michigan

I do not believe that your deletion of these two articles was appropriate.

References

I agree with your point regarding the need for references. This can be remedied. As the one who created these pages and added information to them since 2007, it simply is something that I haven't gotten around to finishing yet. But, providing references is certainly possible.

Notability

This is a subjective concept. Do you think that Saginaw, Michigan is not notable enough? Why did you keep the article List of mayors of Saginaw, Michigan? I argue that the usefulness of the information as a reference by those who seek information is enough to justify its inclusion. There is no other such list of City Council members or City Managers of Saginaw, Michigan available anywhere else in an online format — not even on the City's own website.

Comparable articles elsewhere

There are other similar lists of City Managers: List of city managers of San Jose, California, List of mayors and city managers of Cambridge, Massachusetts, List of mayors and city managers of Lowell, Massachusetts. Further, several articles dealing with municipalities have lists of council members.

You didn't allow enough time for discussion before deleting

There was no urgency to delete these articles. These articles existed for six years and were maintained (mostly by me). If you had concerns, why didn't you bring them up at some point during the past six years rather than to simply pursue deleting them? I would have happily addressed them. CrazyElk (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the person who prodded them. An administrator did after the PROD tag was was up for a week. Before deleting the administrator reviews the nomination and anyone can object in the time from my nomination till the deletion actually occurs. Plus you're alerted via your talk page when the PROD is put up.

As for the articles itself, First of all WP:POLITICIAN states- Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't valid arguments against deletion....William 23:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Justin Garfeld

I've had a 'talk with'. More of a 'talk to' so far. And deleted the last (so far) of his articles. Not sure what to do about the user page. Don't want to be too hard just in case the age he gives is correct and he isn't really a fifty year old sockmaster (no, I don't really think so - but I am cynical...). Peridon (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading User pages or some of the newest pages at WP can be fascinating experiences. This user is seven years old, but he is already conquering the world rather this 50ish editor who spends way too much time on Wikipedia. You have to envy him unless he gets panned by the NYT and ends up like me in 40 years....William 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories at WikiProject Wisconsin

Many thanks for doing the categories at WikiProject Wisconsin. I had been putting the WP Wisconsin template on the talk pages so that it is easy what we have and to keeptrack off. I had done categories of members of the former United States territorial legislatures. The territorial legislatures are a different political entity and they and the United States state legislatures are different from one another. Some thoughts about categories-many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have to put the talk pages in too for any new town categories I'm doing. A few things about the categorizing I'm doing

I'm working on People from Milwaukee County at present. I'm finding a few cases where people are categorized both from Milwaukee County and from Milwaukee. I'm removing the Milwaukee County category from articles then. A person isn't categorized by county and a city or town within it.

If I discover a town, city, or village that will have somewhere of ten entries, I'm creating a category for it. That accounts for the new categories 'People from Richland Center, Wisconsin', People from Shorewood, WI, People from Wauwatosa(I know somebody from Wauwatosa. John sometimes gives me creative input on the webfiction I write.) People from Whitefish Bay etc etc. The consensus is, that a town with four or more entries will survive a deletion or merge discussion though its my personal belief that a town category shouldn't be made unless it has 8 or more entries and preferably 10 or more. There's one exception and that comes next.

If a town is in more than one county and it has a person coming from it, A category is created. I'm going to be soon creating one for Bayside, Wisconsin and at the moment it looks like it will only have two entries. The consensus is a town in more than one county can have its own category even if the category only has one entry.

The People from County categories I look to work on, usually have 50 more entries. With that number of entries, there is most likely a town that would have 10 or more notable people from it. People from Westchester County had over 400 entries in it. I've whittled it down to about 200 by getting people properly categorized and creating about 7 new People from town categories. People from Columbia County Wisconsin I'll be working on pretty soon.

I hope that explains the methods to my madness. Should you have any questions about something I did, drop me a note here. I am usually not far away from my PC between the hours of 6 am to 10 pm EST daily....William 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

say sorry to me

http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/h.s.h.-prince-albert-ii/news/2009/january/hsh-prince-albert-ii-of-monaco-reached-the.1385.html

Withdraw your complaint and say sorry to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maltose Crackers

Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maltose Crackers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: sufficient context and there are sources that exist. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Smile Willy

Hello WilliamJE, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

csd

Please see WP:CSD#A1 We do not use it for short and unsatisfactory articles--we only use it for articles so short and unsatisfactory that it is impossible to tell what the subject is about. An article on list of prisons in a particular country may be incomplete, or unsourced, or have other problems, but it's clear what the subject is. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Smith

Thanks for the correction to the article. MusiCitizen (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, I nominated article about that website for deletion at the same time when you redirected it. Can you close AFD discussion?--В и к и T 11:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE

WP:OVERCITE is not relevant here. And this edit made a mess, breaking a ref and wrongly attributing info to a different source by removing a ref. Rd232 ^talk 13:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Breaking the reference was an accident, but you don't use the same IC multiple times in the same paragraph. WP:Overcite does apply....William 14:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, so breaking the ref was an accident, but attributing info to a different source was what... intentional? And what's with this edit removing details including date from the ref? There is absolutely no need to mess around with this stub, particularly when you keep introducing new problems. For one thing, providing a few too many footnotes in new articles (as in multiple references to the same ref) is actually a good thing, because it makes it less likely that future expansion will introduce errors, particularly errors of the type you provided an example of, namely attributing info to a different source. I'm not sure if you're applying Featured Article standards to a new stub, or something, but in any case, please stop it. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fix the detals to the reference. No, too much use of the same IC leads to citation clutter. Read this from Overcite

"In addition, as per WP:PAIC, citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This does not apply to lists or tables, nor does it apply when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage."

It's overkill aka WP:BOMBARDMENT....William 15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing problems that aren't there. Excessive citation may be used to try to defend contentious things, yes. But that doesn't mean that being generous with the footnotes needs to be stamped out on sight, even in new articles where there is no content dispute. WP:V is more fundamental than any of things you've cited here. (WP:BOMBARDMENT is an essay about preventing non-notable articles from being deleted, for God's sake. We're talking about Illegal drug trade in Paraguay - is notability an issue for this article??) Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This must stop. You are repeatedly, in the name of an essay violating a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, namely WP:V, by attributing information to a different source than the one it came from. Once is an accident; twice is careless; three times is what - intentional?? Desist, or I'll be forced to request some kind of external involvement to stop this madness. Rd232 ^talk 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Only madness is your own

Linking to a category page that don't exist.

Ignoring WP:Overcite which clearly says using a IC more than once in a paragraph is overkill. You're doing it in 3 consecutive sentences.

Invoking WP:V. The IC is being used in my edits to a part/sentence of the article you were already attaching it to. The sentence ending with the word cocaine which links to the UN source. If that is in your own words 'attributing information to a different source than the one it came from' then why are You using it as the source for that sentence? So if the cocaine sentence is from a different source, why isn't it IC to it? If that source isn't in the article, then why do you insist on using the UN source for that sentence? Try talking your way out of that puzzle.

The only madness present is your own. It's making you totally blind about your own work....William 11:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Linking to a category I hadn't got round to creating yet - mea culpa. It says a lot about you that raise this irrelevance in this discussion about you repeatedly breaking references and misattributing information.
2. Ignoring an essay - damn right. I ignore many essays in many situations, especially ones that aren't relevant to that situation. Feel free to create a new essay for me to ignore, it's no skin off my nose.
3. this edit removes attribution of facts taken from the UN source and implicitly attributes them to the final ref in that paragraph, a different source, which doesn't provide those facts. If you don't understand how refs work, then don't mess with them. Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I pick a random article mentioned on your userpage (Viasa Flight 742), and there's all manner of ref-related cleanup to do (some I've done). Maybe you should clean up your own house first. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Project creates route list standard Driving down under Meta and Wikidata update ACR becoming active, changing USRD Cup wraps up	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OK and WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)