User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 15

Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award
Hi you reverted my delsort on the above Afd. I put USA rather than Washington because it is a nation-wide award and not just a Washington state award. I don't see the point in reverting my edit when you could have just added Washington. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in complaining rather than fixing one's mistakes at deletion sorting. Apparently it is a habit around here. See the discussion thread just above this one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining I'm just suggesting that there is a better way of doing it rather than reverting good faith edits from other editors in good standing. As it says here WP:STATUSQUO "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." This essay will probably help you understand why I am the second person leaving a message on your talk page about your reverts, WP:DONTREVERT. The complaint departement is not on your talk page but when you edit in a way that is not keeping with normal editing pratices then expect to get pinged! All other pages that are related to a subject in a particular country are sorted to that particular country. There may be specific guidelines about the USA but the delsort tool doesn't show that. I use it to avoid others having to go back over any Afd that I start when new pages partrolling and doing it themselves then rather than reverting wand leaving sniffy messages how about trying to be a little bit more diplomatic. This is obviously a subject that you feel strongly about which is fine but maybe being a little less bitey would be a good idea. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You just wrote 196 words saying you're not complaining. As I have wrote to you and North America, you rather complain than fix your mistakes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you don't get it do you? I'm suggesting.that your revert was unnecessary and pointing to an essay that explains why and suggesting what to do instead. I call that constructive communication and not complaining. If.you don't or won't understand the difference I can't really help you. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your not complaining again. How about fixing your fixing your mistakes and reading what it says at the top of the USA deletion sorting page. Don't come back to this page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Furthermore, WP:REDNO refers to creating links to "articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia" unlike the links I created. Many of these areticles can (and I hope someday will) be created. —GoldRingChip 15:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are creating dozens of redirects back to the main article page. That is a loop and that is both ridiculous and not needed. Remove the links that are redirects or redlinks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ridiculous" to you, perhaps. They are needed because the aricle may someday be created AND because it then adds categories to them.  There is no reason to delete links that are redirects; redirects are used all the time.  I'm sorry I don't understand your "roof" question. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They are ridiculous since it takes a reader right back to where they started. How would you like to be directed somewhere in your car and only to be right back at your starting point because it is a loop?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying something is "ridiculous" or "garbage" is not a great way to convince someone you're right. But still, I'm willing to discuss this with you.  Many links do redirect back to the same article and that's not a good situtation, but it's only temporary until an intervening article is created.  And that's their purpose. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it to the WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress talk page. I could have called them asinine horseshit which is what I really think of it. I am thoroughly sick of editors who can only read REDNOT where it spells out WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR when it clearly says See also and main article redlinks are not appropriate. You're not the first person to do it and not the first person who can't admit they were mistaken about REDNOT too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And when are you going to fix the REDNOT violations you have created all over the place? About a dozen alone at United States House of Representatives elections, 1972. You can create things that violate guidelines but not fix them?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew there had to be something covering this. Please read WP:SELFRED which says- Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made the correction to the 1972 article by creating all the missing articles. Thank you for your diligence. —GoldRingChip 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

New idea: Comment brackets
You just reverted my edits without reading this suggestion, above. What do you think about it, please? —GoldRingChip 11:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleteing the Main templates, could you please just enclose them in  comment brackets, please?  I am in the process of creating the articles to which the templates would point.  However, it's a very slow process and I'd like not to have to recreate the Main templates once completed.  It would be easier, for me just to remove the comment brackets. —GoldRingChip 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You restored five main page links in that article, three of which were redlinks again AND NOT COMMENT BRACKETS. The edit was more wrong than right, so I reverted it. You want me to go through the laborious extra practice of putting in brackets. How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS. After all they are mistakes done by you in most cases?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry. But what do you think about my idea of using comment brakets, please? —GoldRingChip 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can do it your way but I will do it mine. Both are valid....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I"m sorry I just don't understand you answer. Wikipedia editing isn't about "my way" and "your way," it's about devising good systems that work well.  I'm proposing a way to hide them in accordance with the style guide without having to delete them.  Such a method is used, for example, when images violate use guides… the images are hidden in comment brackets until they can be resolved.  That's what I'm proposing here.  Thanks. —GoldRingChip 14:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So what do you think? —GoldRingChip 16:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I already said what I think. You just don't like it. You have made numerous messes and have done very little to fix them and instead complain at me. As I said up above 'How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS.' I've seen very little action by you on that and at least a dozen pages are affected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done everything you asked. What do you mean?  Ever since you pointed this out, I've stopped using the main template and built article after article to employ the template properly. —GoldRingChip 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * , It is very simple- Overcategorization. Why you can't read my edit summaries and put two and two together is beyond me. 1970s cars is the parent category of Cars introduced in 1975 as I noted here. It is overcategorization to put a article in the parent and its subcategory....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, the fact that the introduction year category was a subcat of the cars by decade category wasn't made clear in the edit summaries. Yes, it makes sense that a car introduced in a certain year would also be a car of that decade.  I would personally prefer all decade categories be shown in the same place for consistency, but I can't really argue that Cars introduced by year doesn't belong under Cars by decade.  Disregard my edits and I'll wait and see if anyone else cares or not. --Vossanova o&lt; 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a mess, and we could even be best deleting these decade categories as unworkable.
 * See Renault 20/30. It belongs in Category:Cars introduced in 1975.  Now if we remove (as you've just done) Category:1970s cars yet leave Category:1980s cars, this creates the totally misleading impression that this was "a car of the '80s" (it wasn't - the Renault 25 took over from both, from early in the '80s).
 * OVERCAT is all too often a simplistic and unconstructive rule, if applied as unchangeable dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bullshit and hogwash. Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also.
 * As for succeeding decades of a car in production for multiple decades, Renault 20/30 was, I don't really care one way or another but as it stands cars produced over multiple decades, say introduced in 1982 and produced to 2002, are categorized as 90s and 00s cars. I have been leaving those....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so you're not interested in discussing this any further. I get it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have answered everyone here. You just don't like the answer- 'Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also'. Seven ten editors and counting don't grasp WP:OVERCAT unless it is spelled out in big red letters....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The first rational solution here is to make categories like as  of the  and leave related articles in both. Or second solution, rename parent  to  and purge non-related articles from it. 46.211.69.178 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At risk of giving you yet another target for personal attacks, I also question the value of removing these categories - for navigation purposes, someone looking through Category:1970s cars is going to expect to find everything there, and not have to browse through each establishment category as well. OVERCAT is a guideline, not policy, and I see nothing in it that would forbid this practice. --Sable232 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OVERCAT is a consensus. Do we categorize Ford Motor Company Vehicle manufacturing companies established in the 20th century? No. How does making a category with more entries make it easier to navigate? Cars introduced in 197? connects to 1970s cars....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 08:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

... six years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello WilliamJE. You've been warned per the outcome of this complaint. You may be blocked if you edit this template again to remove the drone incident unless you have got a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A little help with formatting

 * Pls see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.--Moxy (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Russ Swan
Hi, I saw you changed in the article Russ Swan,the category "Players of American football from New York (state)" for "Players of American football from Ohio". I disagree with this change, so I'm restoring the original category. This player spend his whole life in New York and that is where he developed as a player. That he was born in Ohio it is just circumstance and it doesn't have anything to do with his development.
 * Nope. Going to school somewhere has never been basis for categorizing people as from somewhere. That is a long held consensus around here. What is your basis for his whole life BTW?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, he lived his whole life in New York, so how can you say he is from Ohio, just because he was born there by life's circumstances and spent a few years ?Tecmo (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question- What is your basis for his whole life BTW? Remember WP:V. Plus here is just one instance of consensus in regards to where people go to school and where they are from plus what is regarded as being from somewhere 'notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city.' Please read it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Technical question
Hi. I have just nominated a category for discussion/deletion. As you seem to do a lot of these (more than I do, anyway), I wonder if you could have a look and double-check that I've done it correctly. I don't want to ask those I know will be voting as that may look like canvassing. Deb (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Chirs Duliban
You keep making changes without providing a single proof that your logic for doing it is correct. I will reverse thiose changes.Tecmo (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I linked to the proof above. You aren't reading it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2015 New York poisoned turkey incident
As per your request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) it's at User:WilliamJE/Hoax. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * There appears to be a consensus that many Hall of Fames are not defining. I haven't taken part in any horse related CFDs. Is there any particular one you have in mind?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_27.   Montanabw (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't nominated ANY HOF categories for deletion. However I have gone along with the consensus, that most of these aren't defining. There are multiple HOFs for some sports, and there are regional ones too. The big HOFs shouldn't be deleted. IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * You answered your own question. Read what it says above the edit box and contrast it with what you did to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The statement above the edit box doesn't appear when making mobile edits, so I wasn't aware of the policy. I've included a link in the page's inclusion criteria statement, and explicitly specified that entries must have corresponding articles. Not all list-class pages require entries to have existing articles. Hadron137 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a section in the talk page, because, no, I can't read what it says above the edit box. At least not on mobile devices. Hadron137 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hadron137 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hadron137 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm unclear about why you reverted my last edit on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. I thought your point of contention was the link to the project inclusion criteria. But my last edit omitted the link and you still reverted it. Will you please leave a comment on the talk page explaining your actions? I don't believe that I need concensus to apply edits that are supported by the MOS. Hadron137 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hadron137 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly reverted my edits and posted the following summaries: Yet you have not engaged in a discussion yourself, despite my repeated requests. Due to this behavior, I have submitted an administrators' edit warring notice.Hadron137 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2019
I am not sure if a local consensus at a project can override an editing guideline which has community consensus. Is it written in a MOS regarding red-links and aviation templates? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don't you look at the template's edit history and see edits here and here not done by me where accidents without an article without an article were removed. I could list dozens of these edits from other years too. The consensus is- No article, no entry. These are navboxes not list. Navigation is for navigation and where is there to navigate to if there isn't an article. Common sense and looking around might have provided an answer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question though on how a local consensus can override a community consensus? Things like these do get pointed out, nobody has raised the issue apparently until now. In my opinion this undercuts the guideline of WP:REDLINK where is states: "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.". Undercutting any policy or guideline isn't good as it sets a bad example. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And WP:NAVBOX says- "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. How does a redlink facilitate navigation? Take it to the WikiProject talk page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Sasha Spielberg
Hi colleague! I removed the template for deletion / for quick removal. We also have Sasha Spielberg, a video blogger, and she is also popular no worse than actress Sasha Spielberg. - Vladimir Zolotuhin (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Joanna Walton
Just because she doesn't have an article doesn't mean she's not notable. There are any number of notable subjects which do not have articles. The point is, she wrote lyrics for Robert Fripp, and that fact alone makes her notable. --Viennese Waltz 11:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read this WP page or this recent talk page discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I keep getting messages saying I am creating things that don't need to be created and getting nominated for deletion, and it has confused me. I am not sure what do. Could you clarify what is going on, please. I don't want to get blocked from editing. Thanks! Eibln (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion notifications go out automatically to a page creator when one of their pages is nominated for. None of those deletions would not get you in any trouble. Please read the friendly advice me and another editor left you here on your talk page. You do mostly very good work but there are a couple of things you need to improve on....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi. Just a reminder not to use Edit summaries for remarks directed to other editors. It is best to simply state what you've done. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I called it what it was. Bullshit. Ruiz didn't die so it is BULLSHIT and there is far too much of it around WP. How would you feel if you were family of the dead pilot here? That was up here at WP for around 3 years! Here is another case of absolute bullshit by a editor who lied when adding it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't recall precisely what brought me to your user page, but while here I have been surprised by your incivility and failure to assume good faith. Editors have approached you with intelligent suggestions on how to improve the project and you rebuff them with words such as "I already said what I think. You just don't like it." I get that you are not here to make friends, but if you refuse to collaborate then the project suffers. Elsewhere on this page an inexperienced editor, upset not only by your deletion of their work but also by your derogatory description of it comes seeking explanation, and you, an experienced editor, call them a pathetic loser. You call other editors idiots, stupid, say they obviously can't read, accuse them of lying, etc etc. And when questioned about your immature and unhelpful attitude, you resort to reeling off ancient incidents where other editors have behaved badly, as if that in any way justifies you. In this section of your talk page an editor has, quite reasonably, entreated you to use edit summaries for their intended purpose and not to direct (incivil, though he doesn't say so) messages to other editors. In response you have aggressively doubled down, in capitals, and quoted entirely unrelated incidents.


 * So although I draw no pleasure from the fact it is with a sense of irony and poetic justice that I draw your attention to the death of Rosie Ruiz a month or so before your intemperate comment above. Intemperate? Would you rather it be characterised as an idiotic lie by a stupid editor who cannot read? I hope it encourages you to exercise dispassionate calm and approach your doubtlessly valuable work here with humility. Best wishes Captainllama (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan Military Crash
Like the other editor on the post said, it's quite petty how you deleted literally everything I wrote because you thought it was "bs"... The source was edited by the BBC over time and the other source I provided before you decided to just delete it did actually say the death toll will rise. Just because the source is outdated it doesn't mean you should delete literally everything on the page, you have to keep in mind that it wasn't outdated when I posted it. In this situation you should have edited what was already on the page with updated information, not revert to the previous post with little to no information, deleting all my work over an outdated source, that is vandalism. WETiLAMBY (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're pathetic. I'm a vandal but you're the one who put garbage (I read the BBC report right after the accident and at least one more time between article creation and your edit) in an article then came here to complain about its removal plus you first wrongly claimed another editor was responsible for removing that garbage. As I said, you're pathetic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, is it so hard to apologise for calling someone an illiterate, pathetic loser? Is the really the hill to die on? GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I get accused of being a vandal by an editor who falsely accused another editor first. Then they come back not once but three times to this talk page and re-posted their screeds after they were asked not to post here again. This by an editor who put false information into an article or what I have been calling for at least two years 'bullshit with a reference'. You're threatening me? Who's here to build an encyclopedia me or Wet? Why isn't this punitive? Why am I facing sanctions when there are administrators who regularly use the f word (I don't use that word) towards editors or call them petulant pieces of shit. Please explain the hypocrisy and how any block of me is beneficial to WP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And this 1 The editor who accused me wrongly of sockpuppetry also wouldn't apologize and I know at least one administrator at the time suggested they do so. 2 Someone puts false information into Rosie Ruiz so what else do you call it but bullshit? Besides how does that violate CIVIL 3 Another reply was in response to being called lazy. 4- Another response was to an editor who put up this notice on my page which was totally wrong and not once but twice. Should I go on. ....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * William: It doesn't matter that other editors are being uncivil, rude and dumb, we have to take the high ground and remain WP:CIVIL even in the face of this, as that policy explains. There is good reason for that, because it makes building this encyclopedia possible, which is our aim here and yours, too, I know. GoldenRing is right, the correct thing to do is just apologize and go back to building the encyclopedia. You won't be able to do that if you get blocked. Don't forget principle of war #1: "selection and maintenance of the aim" here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, if it really is that hard, I'm sorry I put my oar in. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are aware of the ANI thread.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please self revert
In Special:diff/876377794, the administrator warned. In early June, you again removed Gatwick Airport drone incident form the template in Special:diff/900829918. Please self revert to avoid a block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello WilliamJE. Can you self-revert your edit at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018? Things do appear to be heating up on this talk page, including the 'pathetic' stuff above. I hope you find the meaning of WP:CIVIL to be reasonably clear. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a related thread at ANI, for the benefit of any talk page watchers. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack
I've blocked you for 48h for your personal attack and refusal to apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Northwest 255 Inquiry
Before I begin, I want to say sorry for my mistake on your user page. I got it mixed up with your talk page.

As far as Northwest 255 is concerned, how can anyone who reads the article be able to learn who the sole survivor is if her name is not mentioned in the 'Passengers' section? Granted, her name is mentioned in the 'In Popular Culture' section, but it strikes me as a bit inconvenient for someone to have to go all the way down to that section just to find information that could quickly be found in the 'Passengers' section. Also, how is Cecilia Cichan not a notable person, especially in light of the nationwide media coverage of the story of her survival? And003 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is the consensus of the WikiProject for Aviation accidents. I even gave you a link to a recent discussion. Did you read it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

List of episodes of Murder She Wrote
Dear

I just noticed you reverted my changes in this article. I am a bit surprised. I was aware there were still typo errors in the article and I had to rewrite some sentences. According Wikipedia practices such typo's are not a reason to revert an article, especially when there were many modifications. According Wikipedia you should inform the writer to correct the errors/language instead of reverting the article. Alternatively, Wikipedia suggest you do the necessary corrections.

By the way: how am I supposed to fix my typo's if the text is gone? As far is I know I can only revert it so the text is back or I can write everything from scratch meaning other errors might be in.

I refer you to next Wikipedia-articles. None of those pages clearly state to revert an article in case there are some typos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Ino mart (talk)


 * You can't be bothered to fix your mistakes. You can instead complain here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Furthermore there are two entries in there that are dubious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Linking roster templates
What is the WP:COMMONSENSE reason for removing these? What is the policy that indicates they should be removed? Absence of templates explicitly appearing in the “see also” guidance is not a requirement for see also not to appear there. Is there explicit guidance that “see also” should not be used for templates? These serve a function and really have no impact to the causal reader. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You obviously can't read the link I provided. Link to wp articles. Since when is a template a WP article?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't assume. I read the link. In what universe does the appearance of guidance of “see also” section in a MOS piece governing articles mandate that this section heading CAN NOT be used with templates? I asked you what policy mandates their removal from templates. Rikster2 (talk)|
 * William - I came to your talk page to discuss and not just revert your changes. There is no clear policy guidance not to use “see also” on templates (unless you are aware of something you haven’t linked). “See also” is used on many sport roster templates (including some other NBA G League teams) so adding this to NBA G League roster templates was not a particularly controversial move. I am happy to discuss (or take part in a consensus discussion), but if you won’t discuss and don’t have any specific policies to point me to on this matter then my inclination is to just restore these to the relevant G League templates. In the case of the Greensboro Swarm template where you reverted me, I believe this would put you up against WP:3RR. My goal in reaching out was to avoid an edit war as I think this essentially falls under WP:BOLD, revert, discuss process, which I was trying to follow. Is there any policy guideline that says “see also” sections cannot appear on templates? 16:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That it is done wrong somewhere else isn't an argument. The Tennis WikiProject loved to put in main article redlinks when WP:REDNOT says not to do so. Congressional election articles with redirects back to the same page in violation of WP:SELFRED. Over a half dozen editors (Look up top on this page) who can't grasp a Car introduced in 1970s year don't go in 1970s cars too. Another editor who thought the prohibition on seealso redlinks didn't apply to the UK law articles he was creating. There is tons of wrong shit around here. BTW how is navigation helped here. The template go in team articles, but the See also link don't. If you wanted to really help navigation, wouldn't a link in the template not on the template page be the way to do it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You just listed two examples of editors violating clear guidance. I have asked you to produce clear guidance on this issue twice and you haven’t done so. Rikster2 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are committing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Seealso says links to wikipedia articles as you been told. These aren't WP articles and I've said this multiple time and any claims I haven't are total falsehoods from you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

r

November 2019
Your recent editing history at Template:Greensboro Swarm roster shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You have not been able to produce any Wikipedia guideline that indicates “see also” sections are discouraged from templates so your actions have no policy basis. The absence of any guidance on “see also” at all on the team plate guidelines does not indicate these sections are disallowed. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am reverting the edits and if you continue this behavior I will bring this to WP:ANI. If you would like to start a consensus discussion regarding “see also” on templates that would be a reasonable path forward, but not edit warring. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:Greensboro Swarm roster
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The blocking administrator clearly screwed up as per below. EDJ claims I didn't do something when I did and it wasn't even hard to find....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Incompetent administrators strike again. To quote you-n 'iF his edits are justified by a policy, he should be able to link to it." I have, it is called WP:SEEALSO. You swallowed the bs Rikster wrote, a clear case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and didn't even check my edit history or bother to properly check the evidence Rikster provided because he supplied it in his report(See evidence #2). It was not even 50 edits ago. Shame on you for being just another disgrace around here. False accusations that make a administrator stick their foot in their mouth, will that get Rikster blocked?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SEEALSO says nothing about templates, so far as I can tell. (Besides being part of WP:MOS, which is only advisory, and provides for 'occasional exceptions'). And the people on the other side of the war were giving examples of where seealso is used in templates in sports articles. So it was a legitimate difference of opinion, which should have been handled through discussion, not continued reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It says links to articles, a navbox ain't an article, other people- you're talking nonsense again, only people involved here are me and Rikster, what is clear is you blocked without doing proper homework on multiple levels. What are you going to do? Dig in your heels I bet, so you're another disgrace around here who does shit to editors based on bs.
 * Seealso is advisory. BS on that or we'd have redlinks allowed in them for any reason. Here's one discussion on that very topic. You were also involved in the enforcement of that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am correcting your unblock request. The instruction "add the following text below the block notice" is intended to mean that you should make a copy of the text below the block notice, not that you should edit the text quoted within the block notice. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 20:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1972 establishments in the Falkland Islands


A tag has been placed on Category:1972 establishments in the Falkland Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1972 in the Falkland Islands


A tag has been placed on Category:1972 in the Falkland Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)