User talk:WilliamJE

If I have left a message on your talk page, please answer there rather than posting here: I will have put your talk page on my watchlist. Thanks.

Under no circumstances, edit anything I post to this talk page. This also includes the deletion of any edits you have made if I have responded to them directly. In that case, ~~strike them out~~ instead. Thanks.

I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.

Notice to administrators. Before posting on any matter involving Nyttend and myself, please inform yourself by reading past discussions involving that administrator and myself dating back to October 2013 plus a late January early February 2014 ANI thread. Relevant discussions can be found in my talk archives plus those of Nyttend, Orlady, and Sphilbrick (both here and at Commons). Happy reading.

Note to anyone messaging or pinging me- I am on the internet only when I am home and between the hours of 6 am to 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time. My wife gets up at 5 and Monday and Wednesday nights I'm doing activities that sometimes cause me to come online later than my norm. Sometimes I'm around a little earlier or later than 6 am to 9:30 pm but don't count on it. This kind of message shouldn't be needed from any editor, we are all volunteers here but I've been twice recently been taken to ANI over non responses. Is it against WP policy to get sleep? At least two editors acted like they think it is.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Consensus

Could you kindly link to the consensus on not listing, naming survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable? Best regards Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_6#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, you are absolutely sure that the person who headlines the articles about the accident on CNN, Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, NPR, NBC, The Guardian, The Independent and Sky News should not be mentioned in the article? Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the 4th time, they don't get named if they don't have an article. @Ahunt:, @Andrewgprout: please chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:WilliamJE is quite right, that is the longstanding consensus. It really all comes down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Cessna 172s crash all the time, as I noted on the AfD, of the 44,000 C-172s built over the last 67 years, probably at least 10,000 of then have been crashed, some more than once. Unless someone notable is involved (with a pre-existing bio on Wikipedia), or there is some lasting effect in terms of procedural changes or Airworthiness Directives, then it is just another crash, one of tens of thousands and not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Your recent editing history at Bob Goalby 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newspapers established in year cat

Template:Newspapers established in year cat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AB Aviation Flight 1103

Well the connection is that people still remembered the crash of the yemenia plane and were still shocked with the crash but however i dont see the connection with Air France 447 too but i guess there is a connection between the yemenia and the crash Iyusi766 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also section links were discussed recently here[3]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syke aircraft shootdown

WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an articl at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the article after nominating it for deletion that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking this edit[4], the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too[5] when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Wikipedia that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I've raised the issue for discussion at AfD. Not looking to have you sanctioned, but to clarify this issue.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

You do good work, and you stand against the horde. I appreciate that. Have this beer on me. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Peapack-Gladstone

This edit removed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis as a notable in the article for Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey. Her article made the connection to the borough and sources are amply available; it took me minutes to address the issue and restore the content. The fact that a source does not perfectly support a fact in an article does not make the fact false nor does it justify the deletion of the material. WP:PRESERVE says that you should "fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't", but there has to be some effort to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Some of the suggestions include "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" or "Tagging it as necessary". Please try to do this in the future, as Wikipedia:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary here[6]. You're hardly the person to complain. The same editor who took me to ANI[7] for removing your book spamming. The same editor who reverted[8] an edit of mine thinking blogspot is a reliable source. The editor who thought Abe Vigoda was from Woodland Park[9]. Oh there is this shit of yours I had to clean up[10] too. Miscommunicating and desperate can describe you besides that edit. Putting references that don't corroborate the sentence is a big problem around here[11] and you're doing it too. Shame on you for coming here to bitch about my editing when you do this shit here. Make a bet there is more work like this in edits here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For all your tantrum above, this edit demonstrates that the individual is notable and that her connection to Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey is backed by a reliable and verifiable source, one that you would have found if you had bothered to fulfill your obligations under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM to make an effort to actually fix the problem instead of butchering it away. You're welcome to bitch and moan with all the what abouts, but here is a case where YOU blatantly violated Wikipedia policy. I will offer another much-needed reminder that Wikipedia:Editing policy is exactly that, a policy. Shame on you. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You put in the same reference not once but twice that didn't say any such thing. If you bothered to read the talk page discussion[12] I linked to this is a major concern of not just me but other people around here. Let's not forget West Windsor, New Jersey where you allowed a major violation of BLP, not to mention the reference not saying any such thing, to stand for six months. You try to own all NJ articles but you disavow all the screwups you or others make. If something is in an article with a reference saying no such thing, it shouldn't be there. Please explain why it should....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Nigeria Airways. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mifter (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifter: Serious you fail reading comprehension. The article says 53 dead. The garbage reference says 69. IN THE HEADLINE. If you or anyone else can't see that[13], you shouldn't be editing here alone be an administrator. This type of garbage referencing is a plague at WP and here is just one case[14] of the many times I have said that. And as always the incompetent or clueless administrators, punish the editors[15] who take this shit out of the article (Check Naomi Ishisaka out) for proof or these two admins getting on my case[16] for taking shit out of articles. Now prove to me you can read what I just wrote....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that any uninvolved editor can easily see is that if you had been WP:CIVIL and provided a better edit caption, you would not have been blocked. Civility isn't just for other people, it's for you too. It would be easy to provide a series of diff's showing you that most of your edit wars and all of your blocks would not have occurred if you didn't engage other editors with such an unpleasant demeanor. Jacona (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I appreciate that you are frustrated, however would again caution you against being uncivil or making personal attacks. I am happy to discuss the rationale for my actions, however incivility and personal attacks are exceptionally damaging to the project and, just as I treat you civilly, I expect the same in return. The block I imposed was for a violation of 3RR taking into account, among other things, that you were uncivil when you addressed the IP on the article's talk page as well as your prior block/warning history for edit warring and civility. To your point about the IP's source, I have no stake in the outcome of this dispute, however, in reviewing the substance of the proposed addition prior to my issuing a block (to see, among other things, if a 3RR exception applied), would note that the reference the IP was adding (as well as a second reference I located in a quick search repeating the quote the IP is relying on) stated that "there were still conflicting reports on the number of people aboard the Fokker F-28 and how many people survived the fiery crash" (IP source with the headline noting "67 people were killed") and "there was still no firm word on the number of people who were aboard the Fokker F-28 jet nor how many people survived" (secondary UPI source I located) which, given that the news articles were published contemporaneously with the crash, is not terribly surprising. However, the specific information the IP is relying on (which appears in both their source and the secondary source I located) does not relate to the preliminary reports of the number of dead (which are likely to be inaccurate), rather a description of a radio broadcast from "Vice President Alex Ekwueme" about the crash stating that the crashed flight was "flight WT-250". The decision for whether or not the source(s) is/are credible/reliable enough to support including the flight number in the article is one I will leave to you, the IP, any any other editors who may comment, however, on its face I would not consider the sources to be so easily discarded as unreliable or inaccurate to justify simply reverting without discussion (i.e. there is reasonable argument that facts about the flight number are likely to be known prior to a crash and may be accurate in initial reports even if the preliminary number of dead is not). To the other points you raise about prior discussions/other articles, as noted above, my actions here were solely as a result of your 3RR violation and edit-warring on Nigeria Airways and are not meant to be punitive. I was not aware of and did not take into account any specific actions/discussions that may have occurred at other places (excepting that, as noted above, a cursory review showed you have a history of civility/edit warring blocks and warnings). Thank you, Mifter Public (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for other reasons as well, including including repeated edit warring, disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment, and signature related disruption. I will not support any unblock request that does not include acceptance of an indefinite 1RR restriction and a rock solid personal promise to never ever make a personal attack on another editor again, and to change your disruptive signature to something utterly uncontroversial. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neil Wilson (baseball)

The article Neil Wilson (baseball) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The SNG's for sports figures require that they now meet the general notability guideline. There are no references for this individual, there is trivial coverage in sports databases, but no significant coverage that would lead one to believe they meet GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1953 disestablishments in Argentina

A tag has been placed on Category:1953 disestablishments in Argentina indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jose Paala Salazar

The article Jose Paala Salazar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Crash victim, only one source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1947 disestablishments in Virginia

A tag has been placed on Category:1947 disestablishments in Virginia indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

(from the cabal of the outcast) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Neil Wilson (baseball) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neil Wilson (baseball) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Wilson (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation to categories for alumni by private school

Thanks for removing the alumni by private school from "People from Foo" categories since you are quite right that the students many not be from that town (example). It's also important to leave some other local parent category so readers can still navigate to the category though. For instance, I just added Category:Sayre School alumni to Category:Education in Lexington, Kentucky which seems both accurate and helpful. Hopefully you return to editing soon but, in the mean time, I'll do some cleanup here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: - you can note that this user was indef blocked in June 2022 and is no longer here. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2006 disestablishments in New Hampshire

A tag has been placed on Category:2006 disestablishments in New Hampshire indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. AusLondonder (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 disestablishments in Montana

A tag has been placed on Category:2019 disestablishments in Montana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]