User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 12

Fine
Though if it takes too long to get a response, I will take you to arbitration. Reversions are incredibly rude, and unless they're done for a fantastic reason, I don't take to them well. Earflaps (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You take it to WP:GOLF's talk page. That's where relevant golf article discussions take place, not the portal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't panic.
Please remember, WilliamJE, that reverting another editor three times is cause for banning. I highly recommend you make more of an effort to engage in discussion before blindly reverting, as don't forget, removing sourced, on-topic additions is easily seen as vandalism, irregardless of how right you think you are. Here are the points I will be disagreeing on.
 * ''Constantly committing WP:OVERCITE. In one case like 5 IC from the same source for one paragraph that is all from the same article.
 * This is called minor sloppiness left over from an intense round of editing. Frankly, getting picky about this is like reading your student's thesis that took them five months to write, and then failing them because they used a single word too often, or had a few typos. I will re-add these sections and be pickier with citation, but remember, any wiki gnome can fix this. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing what Dave Hill said in his book. Do you have a copy of Teed Off? I do. The word innocence is not used.
 * I do believe we're allowed to paraphrase. All I did was re-word your own sloppy paragraph, I didn't "change" what he said by adding a specific quote.
 * Sandra Palmer was never suspended but you created a section header saying just that.
 * Oh goodness, you're right, it was "probation" for a year, not suspension. Really, you could have changed the name of the subsection instead of removing an entire sourced, relevant, and very well-written section. You baffle me.
 * Your removals in the aftermath section
 * The aftermath section was filled with random bio facts that were not deleted, but simply moved to her biography, where they belong. I also added a lovely little summary of her 'recent' awards - or did you not notice that the 'aftermath' section was four years old? It was going on about her writing an article about sexuality in LPGA propaganda, how is this related to the ongoing cheating case? It also went on about how she didn't qualify for the hall of fame. If you'd read the recent info I'd added, it makes all that bla bla about not qualifying moot, because she was given the award in 2014. Anyways, this is the final time I try and pander to your weird reversions before I take you arbitration over it. One little thing you don't like in a large bold addition is not reason to revert 'all' of it. It is, in fact, a bit ridiculous. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * btw, I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about keeping all this Bob Toski stuff on the page, though I don't care enough on that point to fight much. I just feel qoutes from people more involved in the whole thing, like lawyers and committee members, would add more and be more relevant than a coach who admitted he'd never seen anything. As far as making that quote that blatantly insinuates he thinks Blalock is insane, I don't remember finding any other evidence in all the articles you found that he was involved in the legal fracas in any way. But again, whatever. I think actually building the Bob Toskii page into something might be a more productive use of your interest in his narrative. The Toski page is measly as is, and doesn't mention these things at all. Earflaps (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The re-writing of any golf article here at Wikipedia doesn't bother me except when one of two things occur-
 * 1- Factual mistakes are inserted into articles.
 * 2- Reliably sourced content is taken out of them.
 * I could form a long list of the factual mistakes I've found and corrected in golf articles. Like Calvin Peete being a migrant farm worker to Dave Stockton making birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship to many more. I have worked with the pro golf tours when I have found mistakes in their records. My user page says WP has the best golf recordkeeping anywhere. It is not all my work or close to it*, Tewapack* has done great service around here as have others. So I don't like mistakes in articles and you've done it more than once. The attitude you show above in pooh pahing the Palmer mistake you made isn't helpful if you want to work with me.
 * As for reliably sourced content, there is too little around Wikipedia on anything golf related prior to the Tiger Woods era. Recentism has alot to do with it, as does that finding the history golf tours can be a very trying task*. Kathy Whitworth has won 88 LPGA tournaments more than any other player on that tour but the narrative record of it in her article is so thin it is sad. Why is it thin? There just isn't much written on Whitworth and or it is just very hard to find. Facts about Blalock before or after her LPGA troubles makes her career more detailed whether it is 100% directly related to the controversy or not. The article is partly a biography on her.
 * My user page says I'm particular about making sure an article is reliably sourced and I am but WP:OVERCITE is something I have long taken seriously too. You kept committing OVERCITE while I keep saying in my edit summaries that was why I was changing your work. The edit summaries I do is a message.
 * Your adding of detail is great and please add more if you find it, just be careful with the facts (If unsure you can always pop me a message here. I am online as long as I'm home), don't overclutter the article with ICs, and think some more on sourced content in golf articles before removing any of it.


 * - Around four years ago, I did the work to create Whitworth's win and playoff boxes. She won 88 times and took part in 28 playoffs. To get those records compiled was incredibly hard. The LPGA Tour by its own admission in the tour's early days used to keep their record keeping in the trunk of somebody's car.


 * - I try to limit my hornblowing or at least try to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Tewapack has had next to nothing to do with the article. Before I created it, I asked for his help on naming it, he didn't give it. Tewapack didn't feel it was worthy of an article. No article on a sports #1 player being suspended for a year which caused a three-year legal battle? Lets say Tewapack and I don't always see eye to eye.
 * Note: moving to Talk:Jane_Blalock_cheating_controversy so other people can find it. If you have questions unrelated to the page, happy to continue talking on those topics here if you prefer.Earflaps (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

question
Hi WilliamJE! I noticed WP:OVERSIGHT is one of your pet peeves, which is fine. However, you're the only person I've ever seen revert changes on that ground alone. Are you sure you want to continue standing firm on that? Seems to me, accuracy and allowing readers to do proper research on the claims we make is more prevalent, in most cases, than saving people the hassle of looking at too many tiny numbers. Earflaps (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

J. Fred Johnson, Jr.
Hi-the Tennessee General Assembly has a database for their members and found the information about J. Fred Johnson, Jr. and added this to the article-thanks-RFD (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with user 79.74.58.104
Just to let you know WilliamJE, I have sorted out the user 79.74.58.104, who kept posting a personal attack. Completely unacceptable. If he does it again, the personal attack will be reported.

Renaming the Jane Blalock cheating controversy
Good morning! When you have a moment, I wanted to ask your opinion. While accurate, the current "Jane Blalock cheating controversy" title is maybe at odds with Article_titles (which recommends avoiding titles that hint at the editors' opinions about the event), and definitely at odds with WP:CRITS (which reads "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.") I couldn't find an consistent title that the newspapers use to refer to the events, which would simplify things, unfortunately. The first alternatives that popped into my head were "Jane Blalock golf card violation conflict," "1972 LPGA scorecard conflict," and "LPGA vs. Jane Blalock," though I suppose the latter two only refer to part of the article's scope :/. But wanted to see if you had better luck brainstorming. I assume Tewapack might have input too, though I think you mentioned earlier they weren't interested in picking a name. Earflaps (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really have any suggestions. The title was the best I could come up. If someone could come up with something better,, I don't have a problem. Your couple of ideas don't sound any better than the present title, but keep trying. There are other articles with controversy in the title but if we can find a way to remove it and give the article a better name it is fine with me. Would scandal be any better? There has been no worse golf cheating episode, true or false, so far as I know. What happened is just little remembered though I think the wikipedia article may have caused more people to remember it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * THere are indeed other titles with controversy, though I think that's mainly because most people are completely unaware of wp:crits, or the media already gave the event a commonly accepted name. That's my guess at least. I don't think my current ideas are great, but I do think they are better than the current because they fit the guidelines better. Also, I try and avoid scandal, I can loo around but I've run into guidelines that find the word too loaded with connotation. Though I won't move the page until I get at least one other person who concurs on a title. Earflaps (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jane Blalock vs LPGA Tour might be an idea....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea. It actually would fit the guideline I was just looking through (found diddly squat on Naming_conventions_(sportspeople), but Naming_conventions_(events) has some nice tips), which lays out a sort of "when, where, what" structure for an events title that is easily recognized by readers (and the when and where aren't really as relevant with these events as the what, I'd say, so just leaving the "what" descriptor aligns with some of the examples they use). Wonder if it would be weird to use the "vs." if that wasn't how the lawsuit was referred to on the docket, but then it probably was referred to that way. I'll look up some case proceedings, because why not. Earflaps (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, you were basically right, except they left the tour part out and spelled out LPGA. Do you think the acronym would be enough for readers? The other seems so long. Earflaps (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked out Category:Lawsuits, naming convention seems to be to just use the full docket title. Will move on that grounds, feel free to move to something else if you have inspiration. Earflaps (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I'm working really hard on my next ebook (My last one was set in the world of the LPGA Tour) and only editing around here during times of writer's block....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Um
You might want to look at your own edit, before I ever touched the page. There is no inline reference. Please revert your reversions, or I really have no choice but to take you to arbitration for disruptive editing. Reversions are not a game, if either of us goes up to three, we could both be banned. Earflaps (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, is that no? To arbitration we go. Oh fun. Earflaps (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing like this goes straight to Arbcom which tells me how little you know. Two- Do you really want to go that way when I can point somewhere 10 factual errors you have inserted into the two Blalock articles and instances of taking out referenced information. I can name two golf editors who got blocked for WP:DISRUPT after I reported them. One of whom is serving the last days of a two-week block for disruptive editng and personal attacks, something you just did before semi-reverting it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never add in facts without a reference, so you'd need to list those "factual errors," if they even are errors. I also never removed relevant sourced information on the page, not once, we just disagree on the definition of "trivial" in some cases. Also, you never responded to my statement above. And no, I'm not considering arbcom if you don't modify your edit, I'm looking at the edit warring dispute page. There are enough incidents over the past month to paint a pretty obvious picture, that you habitually edit war and misuse the revert function. Earflaps (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of the things you have done
 * Change Blalock's win total from 27 to 29.
 * the sources backed me up, as you well know.
 * Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced.
 * Boston was referenced as well in a good source, and I believe was the more recent residence.
 * Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official.
 * Oops. a mistake. I apologize.
 * Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan.
 * I assume the source I used was inaccurate. So blame the newspaper.
 * Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA.
 * Again, this means the source I used was incorrect. Blame the newspaper.
 * Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into.
 * A mistake, I was confused. You'll noticed I haven't reverted your correction.
 * There's more. That is just what I can think of off the top of my head....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Thank you. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

About red links

 * Those red links help readers find the way that the articles haven't been created, removing them will confuse readers:

"Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

- WP:RED


 *  333-blue  22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're very conveniently forgetting WP:REDNOT which is a part of that same page you're linking. To quote-


 * 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.


 * An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.


 * Certain types of redlinks aren't allow. Ones to categories, Main and Further templates, and See also links. There was a talk page discussion on some of that late last year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But we always use them on tennis articles, same as before, and nobody except you say that is not OK.  333-blue  23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The same argument used in that talk page discussion too except it was for law articles. It didn't pass muster if you would bother to read it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Almost all tennis editors accept them.  333-blue  23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Read Argumentum ad populum....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't what did you mean "the roof". The article says: three men make a tiger.  333-blue  23:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to remove all red links in those tennis articles.  333-blue  00:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I pang other editors to discuss with them.  333-blue  10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You pang what you think will be a friendly audience. This is wikipedia policy. Go to WP:RED's talk page. That is where a community discussion should take place. Also remember what it reads about category redlinks. It says they should never be made. I warn you- I will take you to ANI if re-add one again. You re-added two last night....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have moved the discussion to WT:RED.  333-blue  10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — S Marshall T/C 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel no need to respond to this till either someone makes a comment on it that I need to address or seondly you properly file an ANI complaint. That it the job of the OP and so far you have failed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, another thought is if an image was "published" by being publicly displayed... sometimes that works. Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fast Clip.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fast Clip.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I got it fixed for you.  Montanabw (talk)  06:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Moved Nickells to prime time, no sense wasting time with an AfC reviewer (AfC is where articles go to die... meh). Next draft, feel free to create a sandbox in your userspace, such as User:WilliamJE/Articletitlehere and create and save your draft that way, then move it into article space once you have it ready to go (I have craploads of these, see, e.g. User:Montanabw/Dude Rancher Lodge) and then you can, if you choose, put a speedy deletion tag on the sandbox (or not).   Montanabw (talk)  19:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wei Hang Flight 252
Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wei Hang Flight 252, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: although certainly non-notable, this is not a hoax - see comment at the AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Heading to the roof
That's quite a confusing signature you've got there, particularly when used on a comment that's shorter than it! I had to reread your post to realise that you weren't pinging a "William" with an oblique reference to complaints. You might want to change the font size or put some dashes at the start of it or something. --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Make it look more like a normal sig.  There are rules about signatures... -- Elvey (t•c) 21:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a cute signature, perhaps just a different font color would do the trick, maybe with the "small" parameter.  Montanabw (talk)  01:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pure vandalism
My vandalism is sourced from the finest ingredients to ensure it is the purest and most innovative vandalism on the market.

Rich Homie Hitta (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Air Crash Investigation
I have no idea as to why but that is what FOXTEL's title search indicated when I was checking for the episode airing on June 28, 2016. The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Natgeo has the title that you have but no description. Imdb isn't a WP:RS, so till we get one we can't put in a June 28th entry....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not IMDB. It's a FOXTEL TV Guide description of the program. (FOXTEL is the pay to company which airs National Geographic in Australia.) Thus far it's been reliable. I'll take a photo of the title search if you wish for further evidence. The GRVO fLig htn ing (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hawker_Hunter_Tower_Bridge_incident
FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

thanks
Many thanks for your helpful and unsolicited intervention in the recent bad block I endured. As I've recently discovered both with that, and the recent TBAN drama I've been dealing with at ANI, there seems to be a need for some reform in the life tenure structure that has given rise to a feudal culture among some admins akin to barons surveying their lands. Though, obviously, that's not happening soon. My sincere thanks, again - LavaBaron (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have made it a practice to stand up for other Users against incompetent administrators. That and my outspokeness about the administrator misdeeds has regularly led to efforts by them to bully me. It hasn't worked on multiple occasions but I have no doubt there won't be another episode. The administrator corps won't police themselves and that gives them all a bad name and will continue to do so until some type of reform happens. Thank you for the Barnstar....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also I don't have a very high opinion of DYK and GA processes. It all stems from this article- Crossair Flight 498. The DYK- 'that the crash of Crossair Flight LX498 was initially attributed to cell phone use, and led to bans of cell phones in airplanes in several countries?' The crash was never attributed to cell phone use. It was media conjecture. As to the bans, none of it was reliably sourced.
 * The aritcle went through GA process a few years later with this statement in it- 'However, a separate investigation into the cause of the crash'. The whole sentence is unreferenced and there is no proof of a separate investigation. Anyone who knows air crash investigations would have smelled a rat. (In fact editors did try to edit the cellphone stuff in the article but got reverted) I did see this as wrong a few years later. After some discussion, most of the cellphone stuff in that article was removed.
 * In almost 80,000 edits I have made here, I have never been a part of getting an article to GA status, and have only taken part in a couple of DYKs. Old articles are mostly exempt from the latter, and wrongly in my opinion. Why shouldn't Sam Snead be eligible. Did you know he is the only male golfer to win an official event on the women's golf tour, the LPGA Tour?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am curious
as to what prompted your recent edit at Alexander Stirling Calder? It (the one you removed) seemed like a perfectly reasonable, useful catagory to me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the explanation you want.
 * 1- Porn births category doesn't exist. Per WP:REDNOT Do not link to categories that don't exist. It was probably **vandalism IMHO.
 * 2- Calder was categorized 'Artists from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania'. I removed 'People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' because that is overcategorization. When categorizing people from a location by occupation, you put them in the occupation category(Businesspeople, Artists, Writers etc) and remove them from the mother category 'People from'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Okay, I missed the Porn category, that we can do without. He did do some nudes, but one would have to be pretty far out to call it "porn." I think everyone from a particular state who is in wikipedia is going to fall into some occupation, wouldn't you think?  No, I guess you wouldn't.  Silly me.  Carptrash (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are over 2,400 articles in 'People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' at present. I have been sorting them out and recategorizing them (Putting say Sculptors into Artists category, A poet into the Writers category etc etc) and sometimes creating new categories (Clergy, Businesspeople, Television personalities, and Military personnel). When and if I get through all those articles, I expect the amount of articles leftover to be more like 500 than 2,500. There aren't categories for every occupation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bother. If you have a plan to clear up some mess (2,500 is a lot) then have at it.  I did not revert you, just was interested in what you were up to. Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, me morning' cuppa tea. Perfect way to begin the day. Carptrash (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I edited your nomination
I wanted to let you know that I made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2016_July_14&type=revision&diff=729854368&oldid=729854263 this change]. (I think that's what you intended.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Diplomats from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has been nominated for discussion
Category:Diplomats from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello WilliamJE. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.  Mini  apolis  13:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrator trout slapped here for not speedy deleting under the grounds it was nominated for but under other grounds....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and don't forget WP:DTTR; sorry about that. All the best,  Mini  apolis  13:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Was the DTTR comment supposed to be a joke? You incorrectly template me and you complain I trouted/templated you? If that last comment wasn't a joke, why should this appallingly careless person be an administrator?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Confusing signature
Re:

Hello. When I read your post, I thought you had typed "...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?", addressing someone named William and linking to his user page and talk page, and then accidentally typed five tildes instead of four. I couldn't figure out who William was, or what your apparent comment had to do with the discussion. I started to add, and discovered that the username was the same as that linked in the comment. At that point I put it together: it was a signature, not a comment. I think my confusion is understandable, considering that (1) this is the first time in 3 years I've encountered a signature that looked like a comment, and (2) people don't generally address themselves as if they are someone else. Even with the knowledge that it's your signature, I have no idea what it means, so apparently it's effectively a private joke between you and yourself, and perhaps a few other editors who know you. Please note the statement at WP:SIG: "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users." Emphasis added. This is compounded by the fact that a reader can't determine your username immediately upon reading your posts, although that problem is far more widespread. While you probably can't be required to change your signature, I wanted to be sure you're aware that you are confusing at least some readers. The decision is yours. Best,&#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This one has been discussed before, and not changed before. That said, William, maybe put the whole thing in a pretty color or something...!  LOL! Montanabw (talk)  22:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion. Add a prominent note at the top of this page, which would at least save other confused editors the time required to craft their comments here. "I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL!  Montanabw (talk)  20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing that statement from my talk page. I have absolutely no idea why the IP user leaving those messages thinks I would support them. Given that they initially dumped versions of that screed on my user page I can only assume that they may have been trying to get me banned or to mislead you into thinking that I held those views.

Graham1973 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP is using your talk and user page as their conduit because
 * 1- My Talk and User pages are protected because of similar posts by this person going back to early April
 * 2- You also edit List of Mayday episodes talk page.
 * The person has made horrendous personal attacks that have required them to totally deleted from Wikipedia. He is blaming me for editors leaving Wikipedia which I had nothing to do with. In fact one of them was banned after accusing a editor of making personal threats in a email. This IP is persistent, he'll be back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Media credentials
William,

Is nice to be talking to you about a different subject. I saw your comment here That you had arranged for media credentials. Can you tell me more about this process? I would like to arrange for media credentials for a friend of mine but in the specific example I'm thinking of, the venue wants a request on official letterhead which is not likely to be something that Wikipedia will produce. How did you go about it?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is good to hear from you.


 * I received media credentials to work an LPGA Tour tournament in both 2007 and 2008. The latter I did for Newsweek who at the time was considering adding a golf blogger. It didn't happen. Here's a link to one of my articles from way back then.


 * The LPGA has a media blogger policy now. It can be found here. It is still valid. A generic media credentials page, with a media email contact can be found here. If your friend is wanting to work a LPGA event I suggest they email the LPGA. From my past experiences I know they will get back to them. I used to know the person who handled this stuff- his name is Mike Scanlan, but Mike left the LPGA a few years ago.


 * A sports venue. I would have your friend contact them by phone or email. To be honest, working around wikipedia isn't likely to get someone credentialed. They would have to have blogging or free lance writing experience that they can show as proof they just aren't someone looking to get in for free. I had been blogging for 3+ years. Most of which was at the Sports portion of a very popular political blog. The owner of the blog was contacted by the LPGA, prior to my first credentialed LPGA blogging, but I forget what was asked of my blogging boss (James Joyner).


 * Note- Usually the sport that is playing its event, not the venue do the credentialing. SP, feel free to private email me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed answer. My friend isn't blogging, so that may be a problem. In this particular case, it looks like the venue is making the call. However, your point is well-taken, and it may be possible the event has their own rules, which may trump the venue rules. I'll check into it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2018 Formula One season
You have filed the AfD but not actually put anything into the AfD discussion page. As that was confusing the daily log, I have created a framework page: all you need to do now is replace the part between with your reasons for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Greetings, noting here that the community has enacted an one way interaction ban on you from Nyttend. Meaning that (per WP:IBAN) you are not allowed to comment on Nyttend in any way, edit his user or user talk page, reply to him in a discussion, revert in one way or another his edits or use the "thanks" function with him. There is a standard "exception list" on WP:BANEX and if you want to appeal the ban see WP:UNBAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Continental Express Flight 2286
There is consensus on the Continental Express Flight 2286 talk page for using that name as the page name. This consensus is based on the fact that the NTSB report repeatedly describes the flight name as "Continental Express Flight 2286", as well as multiple media sources that used "Continental Express Flight 2286" to describe the flight, per WP:COMMONNAME. It would appear that you erroneously edited a direct quote from a media source, believing it to be editable content. I assume in good faith that this was just a misunderstanding, and am sure that with a more careful read, you will see that the quote is correct and that "Continental Express Flight 2286" is how the flight in question is normally described in common usage. If you disagree, please discuss further on the talk page for that article before making further edits. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's resolve this once and for all. Shall we leave it as Continental Express Flight 2286 or shall we change it to Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286? MattChatt18 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jacqueline Logan
Hello WilliamJE, I noticed that you recently deleted Jacqueline Logan from the List of people from Decatur, Illinois page and was wondering how you came to that conclusion. It is apparent that there is little, if any reference to her Decatur connections on Wikipedia but that does not mean that she is not from Decatur. I have found this quote on page 26, of the Sunday, August 8, 1926 Decatur Daily Review, Decatur, Illinois: "Jacqueline Logan. Decatur's own motion picture star, can be seen this week at the Avon In "Footloose Widows." The picture Is based on a recent story. Jackie has many ardent followers In Decatur." That was over 50 years before she was buried in Decatur and being described as "Decatur's own" would imply that at some point in time she had a close connection to Decatur. Is there a WP standard for being from a place? Can someone be from more than one place? I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks for your contributions to WP. BuffaloBob (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to put her back in the list article but I'd also put that in as a reference both in her article and the list article. Logan's article makes no mention of Decatur. Though I will say something, sometimes a person will go to school in Foo when they are actually from Fooville. Years later an article will claim that person was their own. I saw that with one Phil or Joe Niekro and Bridgeport, Ohio. The brothers grew up in nearby Martins Ferry, Ohio per many reliable source but graduated from a school in Bridgeport. Notable people guidelines at US Cities WikiProject say lived or born not buried or went to school in Foo as criteria for adding a name.


 * If my bookselling at Amazon (I have 16 books that I authored for purchase that have made me between $160 and $2,000 a month since April 2014) ever makes me a famous author, somebody might wrongly conclude I'm from Deerfield Beach, Florida because I went to high school there but in fact lived in next door Lighthouse Point, Florida Re-add Logan if you want. I make no objection. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Contributing info to a discussion
Curious we are extended family of Clifford Brady who you authored an entry about. Have some photos if you would like them to add to the page. Don't really know how this all works. Thanks for the entry though. Grew up to stories about my Great grandpa Brady and looking at pics and newspaper clippings of him with Ty Cobb...but it was cool to see an outsiders input on it. Taeleen1 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Nice to see someone here with real (and interesting) background experience/knowledge who shares my interest in harness racing. Please let me know if there is an article or research I could assist you with. Hope to do more major races and driver/trainer articles but will have to see how time permits. Mateusz

Bluegrass Stakes
When you search Wikipedia for Bluegrass Stakes you will get a Redirect Page to the Thoroughbred Race at Keeneland Racecourse, the Blue Grass Stakes. This use of "Bluegrass" is a spelling mistake that has never been corrected in several Wikipedia Thoroughbred articles which I have just now done. However, if you go to the Bluegrass Stakes Redirect page's Revision list you will see where I fixed what I viewed as an improper Redirect to be the a stub article for the proper Bluegrass Stakes in harness racing at The Red Mile. But, another user immediately reversed my work. Can you advise what I should do? Thanks. Mateusz K (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Gene Riegle
Thought you might want to check this out in your article. The infobox calls him Grant E. Riegle. I'm pretty sure the "E" is for Eugene, hence the commmon usage of Gene as a nickname. Mateusz K (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure (and I happen to agree with you) isn't enough. WP:SYNTH prevents us putting the name Eugene name based on the referenced facts that his nickname was Gene and his middle name started with the E and that a nickname for Eugene is Gene. If a reliable source can be come up that says his middle name was Eugene, we can add it to the article.
 * Also note the reference for the name is an obituary. Obituaries fail WP:RS in most instances when writing articles. Like a person's work accomplishments, military background if any, education. A obituary can be used for non-controversial stuff like birthdays or place of birth or a person's full name....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Assassination in Marseille
This event deserves a separate article, like this es:Asesinatos de Marsella I think it will be expanded Please return your change--Свифт (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi WilliamJE,

I have just now sent this message to wiae


 * Hi Wiae,
 * You accepted this article and moved it into articlespace on 22 October 2016. It was nominated for speedy deletion under the WP:G5 criterion as a page created in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others.
 * The anonymous editor that started the article for creation is Special:Contributions/24.239.48.213. The alleged sockmaster is.
 * The article has been in the speedy deletion category since 19 November 2016.
 * The article would seem to me to about an obviously notable topic. Maybe we should jump in and make changes to avoid the G5 deletion? Or is this a case where we should Revert, block and ignore?
 * I would appreciate your opinions about this. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Special:Contributions/24.239.48.213 an obvious sockpuppet of ? If so, what should we do about this?

Pete "long term assumer of far too much good faith" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pat LaMarche
You and User:Namiba are both warned per the result of your edit warring complaint. See the details there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1988–89 NCAA Division I men's basketball season
I noticed that you tagged this article for speedy deletion under G5, but the user who created the article hasn't been blocked or tagged as a sockpuppet. I'm inclined to believe you, as I recognize one of the user's other drafts as being pretty similar to something I deleted under G5 a week or so ago, but I'd like to have a little more clarification before acting on that one - what's the background here? TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This talk page discussion covers things Brownsfan also admitted here to being SNIyer12. User Brownsfan/SNIyer12 was editing offline too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I went ahead and deleted it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch, WilliamJE. Didn't know the user was evading a block when I accepted the article at AfC. Thanks, /wiae /tlk  22:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I didn't know Brownsfan was a sock of a banned user either till just recently. You learn something new everyday....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)