User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 17

WP:Citation overkill

I've also noted that the Aaron Hernandez article engages in WP:Citation overkill.

In cases like this, though, there are editors who will tag parts of the paragraph as unsourced, thinking that only the end of the sentence or the last two or three sentences are sourced. In those cases, I understand citing like that.

When editors unnecessarily stack three or more references after a single sentence? I have more of an issue with that.

If you reply, no need to ping me. I'll check back for a response. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the post. Improper referencing is a big problem around here. I've been taking care of WP:OVERCITE situations regularly. Editors should know this, and if they see a paragraph check the source on it if it is the only one used.

Which brings up a much bigger problem. Putting references on a sentence when the reference doesn't corroborate the sentence at all or just partly. Experienced editors do this too. As seen in edits recently at 1959 Open Championship. Or much worse, PauknAir Flight 4101 where a young editor put 'A greater than allowable blood alcohol level of the pilot' into the article when the Accident report used as a reference says no such thing[1].

I've run into difficulties with other editors who do these things too. Anyway, some more of my thoughts can be found here[2]] and here[3]. The latter concerning the disgraceful Naomi Ishisaka[4] situation. I can get started on WP:OR too but time is short for me this morning. Take care and cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1997 disestablishments in Northern Ireland

A tag has been placed on Category:1997 disestablishments in Northern Ireland 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Danny Dietz

Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Danny Dietz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It’s been three years, a lot may have changed from that, please use other deletion alternatives like WP:AFD. Thanks . Thank you. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 10:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He's been dead for 15 years. What can change when you been buried that long?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination of Henrich Jaborník

Hello WilliamJE. I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Henrich Jaborník as being recently created and duplicating an existing topic under CSD A10. That criterion did not apply because it was, to me, better sourced than the article it was duplicating, and/or could have been turned into a redirect. Techie3 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dying in Lisbon, North Dakota

Charles W. Buttz moved around: he was born in Pennsylvania, moved to New Jersey, moved to Virginia, moved to South Carolina where he became a Congressperson, to Fargo, and finally to Lisbon, North Dakota where he did the following:

• Helped formally establish Ransom County, North Dakota, with Lisbon as the County Seat
• Served a State's attorney for Ransom County, based out of Lisbon
• Represented Lisbon in the North Dakota in the state House of Representatives
• Died in Lisbon

You removed the the article from Category:People from Lisbon, North Dakota with the edit "Dying somewhere doesn't make a person from that place."

Certainly if someone is flown into a regional medical center and dies there they shouldn't be categorized by that city. But being a prominent (if recent) local politician is defined by that location, no? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence he lived there. Here is the criteria for US cities[5] and it says 'born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city.' Not worked, died or went to school. His congressional biography says he resided in Buttzville. That is a Ransom County Ghost Town[6]. I also undid this edit[7] of yours. Playing in Foo doesn't automatically make someone from Foo. That has been a long time consensus....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "Buttzville" appears to be the small hamlet by his bonanza farm (as implied here.) which isn't in the current article.

Are we agreed that he should be in Category:People from Ransom County, North Dakota though? RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I just added that category....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE in Vineland

WP:PRESERVE, a foundational Wikipedia policy, gives us very specific guidance: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."

I looked at the content you had removed, agreed with you that the entry didn't belong as a notable person, searched for a source, recast the information to focus on the book (rather than the person) and I preserved encyclopedic content. You could have done that yourself, and you can do that in so many of your edits where you simply remove material by asking yourself if the facts belong in an encyclopedia and / or looking for a source to justify retention. It's not just a nice thing to do; it's policy. While you did ultimately revert your own edit, the aggressive edit / edit summary in this edit was entirely unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It was justified for a NP entry. That entry should not have been there when I first removed. You know the criteria[8] for those sections as well as I do. In fact you put a cn tag on it back in August rather than take it out of a section it had no business being in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies

My sincere apologies for misinterpreting your efforts to remove inappropriate sources, for not paying appropriate attention to your legitimate issues, for being rude and disrespectful and for starting the ANI discussion in the first place. I hope that we can work more collegially in the future, especially on my part. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and I hope so too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Brandon Renkart

Given the extensive significant coverage uncovered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Renkart, I thought you might want to withdraw so time can be spent on more important matters. Fine either way. Just a suggestion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cb162: First, can you explain how Renkart meets criteria #2 at WP:NCOLLATH? It reads- "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Very rarely, a player may gain national media attention despite not being on a notable team, such as Lauren Hill." Every single source you put forward is from New Jersey media....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The coverage brought forward establishes a WP:GNG pass. Nobody is advancing this as an NCOLLATH case. NSPORTS is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary standard. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Category:Foo High School alumni be tagged with Category:People from Foo?

I understand your general concern regarding this edit to Category:Abraham Clark High School alumni, in which you removed Category:People from Roselle, New Jersey and replaced it with Category:Roselle, New Jersey. There are many school districts where the students in a particular school can come from many places other than the place where the school is located; Foo High School may be in the city of Foo, but some students may be from other communities in the Foo metropolitan area, so it would be wrong to tag the mythical Category:Foo High School alumni with Category:People from Foo.

in the case of Abraham Clark High School] and Roselle, New Jersey, the ambiguity is not present. The Roselle Public Schools is explicitly coterminous with the borough, as can be seen at Roselle Borough Board of Education District Policy 0110 - Identification, which explicitly states that "The Roselle Borough School District is comprised of all the area within the municipal boundaries of Roselle Borough in the County of Union." There are some districts that in which students from other municipalities attend the district's schools, such as at David Brearley High School, which is the high school for the Kenilworth Public Schools, but also serves students from Winfield Park, New Jersey under the terms of a sending/receiving relationship, or such as at Scotch Plains-Fanwood High School, which is a regional district that serves both Scotch Plains, New Jersey and Fanwood, New Jersey. However, no such sending / receiving relationship or regional district status exists at Abraham Clark. While I do sometime neglect to include a "People from" category in such cases, it was only included here because the overlap between school and municipality exists here; students at Abraham Clark High School are from Roselle, by definition.

Does my explanation address your concerns in editing this category and related categories? Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I hear what you are saying. Here are my thoughts

Has this school always been this way? Abraham Clark after all has been a HS for the better part of 100 years or 1932 at least.

By making an exception here, we are leaving a bad example for other editors who wouldn't know about this talk page discussion. I've lost count how many times I have decategorized alumni pages of 'People from' categories.

Does your confirming information fall under WP:OR? Recently I had this talk page discussion[9] concerning OR when categorizing a BLP.

On that thought, I would to hear what that editor thinks on this. @Deepfriedokra:}. If DFO agrees with you or if we discuss this some more or maybe after we discuss this some more I will be happy to restore the original category. I have a doctor's appointment late this morning and some other things to do. My editing will be light at best till early this afternoon (Our time. We're both EST if you're from NJ). Reply back here in the meantime and lets see if DFO chimes in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Aw, jeez, ...William, what'd i ever do to you? my i has a tittle and always will MEGA--Make English Great Again. Did my doctor's appointments last week. Last night applied for Social Security. I would have gone with "People from", but the contra argument makes sense, "People from" populates "Foo"? Not saying w need to wholesale change CAT's, but maybe we can go with "foo" moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Steve Zissou

So why do you not delete Zissou already? He uses Wikipedia only as brochureware. The guy is a menace and should not be given a free platform. Hlev3 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You should try reading WP:AFD and WP:Notability to learn why and how articles are deleted it isn't up to me. Lastly read WP:BLP. Your edit I reverted was simply unacceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Overcategorization at Provisional IRA pages

Thanks for correcting all the mess I left there, Williams, and Merry Christmas!---Darius (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD warnings

No AFD templates, thankyou.† Encyclopædius 18:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

this is not how we are suppose to work here

Now, you have everted me for the third time, this is not how we are suppose to work here!

If you insist on doing this i have will have to escalate this. Please stop doing this, and contribute on the talk page of the article. Saschaporsche (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We never "evert" people on Wikipedia! - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@ WilliamJE, if you keep reverting me without participating in the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Saudia Flight 163, i will have only one option left: ask a moderator to block your account. Why do you persist in reverting? Saschaporsche (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Because you are putting something in the article that don't belong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So, are you willing to participate in the discussion on the talk page or not? Saschaporsche (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lines breaks

Manual line breaks should be removed wherever they have no benefit because (more than anything) they have exacerbate wrapping on smaller displays. Consistency is a secondary concern to accessibility. A much narrower range of technologies used to access WP were considered when these layouts were devised – seem like now is as good a time as any to change/update. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• The addition of the word 'the' to the playoff records breaks the style used for these boxes. Are you ready to change every box from Tommy Aaron to Fuzzy Zoeller. Another inconsistency I am correcting is the use of by instead of with in playoff boxes. Somebody changed them but just for European Tour playoff boxes. Golfers Ballesteros, Langer, and Player had two different styles on the same page. One for PGA playoffs and another for European (and sometimes other tours)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We should write in English (as with your corrections of by→with, although the wording still lacks clarity; i.e. who does the "with" refer to?). The only consistency we actually require is within the same article, hence use of appropriate regional English, date formatting, etc. There are way too many articles and different opinions to have consistency across WP; always one article at a time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see the confusion. Every playoff box results begins with 'XXXX wins with' a score on whatever extra hole. Put 2 and 2 together....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This has come up before in WT:GOLF. It's my view that "by" in much clearer than "with". Using "Smith eliminated with a par at the first extra hole" is ambiguous in that a simple reading implies that Smith was the one "with a par at the first extra hole". Using "by" removes that confusion. Nigej (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 5#Playoff record - clarification required for the previous discussion from 2017, where my impression was that the consensus was to use "by". Nigej (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a clear consensus from this discussion, the previous one and edits of other people, with only you opposing, that we should use "eliminated by" and not "eliminated with" in the playoff summaries. Nigej (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Clear consensus? 3 editors posted to the discussion and one only to say they were making the switches. And as it is, the switch is only being made to European Tour playoff records. PGA Tour records are being left alone as seen by yesterday's slew of edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My view is that neither wording is ideal and "Player X was eliminated on the nth hole" would suffice, because the scores of those completing the hole gives no indication (other than a misleading one) of the eliminated players score – did they even complete the hole? OB, water, 3-putt, missed 2-footer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The scores of players eliminated are never noted even if its just a two hole playoff between Jones and Smith. 'Jones wins with par on second extra hole'. What did Smith do? Make bogey, double bogey, make worse, not finish the hole, be disqualified for popping rolaids in the middle of Jones swing?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) That's kind of my point. The only relevant hole score is the one that wins the tournament. Ambiguous and unhelpful wording should be minimised or eliminated, along with bad English. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Also disagree, since the current wording is consistent with the normal two-man sudden-death form where we say eg "Lost to birdie on third extra hole" giving no indication of the loser's score, only that it was not sufficient. It's surely the nature of a sudden-death playoff that only the scores of those who win or carry on are relevant, the other(s) are simply eliminated. Nigej (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
      • In addition to my above reply, we also don't make note of any other holes scores where all remaining players carry tied. The only significant hole score is the one that finishes the playoff. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I think you can argue that for the player being eliminated, the score than eliminated him IS important, and anything that happens from then on, between the remaining players is neither here nor there, from his perspective. Nigej (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Important to them perhaps, but is it to us? Given it is commonly not reported (even the winning hole score is often omitted), probably not. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
            • In the article about the eliminated player, I'd have thought it was important to us. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
              • A long time ago in a discussion with Tewapack, we considered it best to keep the playoff boxes simple. Sudden death playoffs end abruptly, holes aren't completed. Old newspaper articles in newspaper archives don't give enough detail. Hunting down playoff results can be a real chore for any golf tournament prior to 1990, and it gets worse the further you go back. I'm the editor who did Kathy Whitworth's boxes for both her 88 LPGA wins[10] and her 28 LPGA playoffs[11]. Tracking down the latter weren't easy. For that reason, and that virtually the only records for her wins are in print and not on the internet, I have shied away from tackling the task of doing the same for Mickey Wright.
              • Back to all the player's scores, whether we have them or not, the clutter in playoff boxes would just be horrendous IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with Nigej. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ben Crenshaw edit

Hi William,

I noticed you just deleted the sentence about Ben Crenshaw having the worst playoff record in PGA Tour history. It said in the Sports Illustrated article that he had the worst record ever (0-6) in 1987. It only got worse - it ended as 0-8. No one has come close since the late 80s and posted a worse playoff record. Why did you make that deletion?

Also, you wrote in the description for the edit, "IC says no such thing." What does that mean?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

• IC- Inline citation. 2nd- The article said his record was 0-6 not 0-8 but the sentence said 0-6. Editors around WP have a very bad habit of using references that don't corroborate what they writing into articles and. Feel free to read[12] about Naomi Ishisaka and a WP editor called Factfanatic1. Irony thy name is Wikipedia. You answered your own question but still had to post here about your wrong edit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

First off what I did didn't have nearly the same repercussions as what Factfanatic1 did.

Anyhow, editors very regularly don't buttress their claims with citations at all on WikiProject Golf... there must be thousands of examples like this. I am very surprised you picked on this one. The statement I had up there was totally accurate and my citation was pretty close.

Anyway, I just added an a more recent source regarding this claim on Crenshaw's page. Let me know what you think.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Pattern of bogus edits

Your recent edits to Montclair State University are completely bogus. You know full well that you were removing listings for notables that have reliable and verifiable sources here or that can be added with trivial effort, as required by WP:PRESERVE. This edit is entirely disruptive. William E. Gordon, Paul J. Lioy and Herman Sokol are undeniably notable, and all of their articles connect them to the school. Your claim that Sokol's obituary in The New York Times is unacceptable is pure BS. This edit to the article for Alpine, New Jersey was ridiculous too coming from an experienced editor. One time no, bs again. I haven't and will not study all your edits but it is obvious when there is a pattern of deception in an editor's work here. Your editing is extremely sloppy and Your block log shows you've been blocked regularly for edit warring, personal attacks and other abuse over the past decade, about once a year. Please try to learn your lesson and please try to recognize your responsibilities as an editor. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are a total hypocrite. How many times have you deleted entries to NJ articles because they don't have an article and reference? How about this edit[13] of yours to Montclair? Read the edit summary very carefully. BTW Lioy was listed without any reference. Are you blind too? I have seen those edit summaries dozens of times. So your post here is reprehensible as is your character. Don't forget the time you added a People from category to a article about a company in order to save the category from deletion. Oh and the Alpine article had a citation needed tag for 9 years{Check who put it there[14] in the first place) and you've edited that page[15] approximately 85 times while the tag was there. Hypocrisy and the person doing bogus bullshit around here is you. Harass me some more and I will take you to ANI and expose this shit....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Too often, you're disruptive at best, destructive at worst. You twice deleted sourced material from Montclair State University, despite knowing full well that you were removing entries for William E. Gordon, Paul J. Lioy and Herman Sokol, three people who are undeniably notable, and all of their articles connect them to their attendance at the school. Read WP:PRESERVE and follow it. Before you remove a notable, look at the article and look for sources. Fix problems, as required by Wikipedia policy. Given your sorry track record, past and present, you may want to read WP:BOOMERANG before running to ANI. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lioy wasn't sourced at all. And quoting you- "remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST)" Someone edit summarizing that has no basis for complaining when another editor follows that word for word. I have to report you to ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Kids: please settle down here, remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ahunt: FYI I started an ANI thread. It can be found here[16]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

PBLOCK

Per discussion at WP:ANI#Editor S_Marshall, and at his request, I've issued a PBLOCK preventing you from editing S Marshall's user page and talk page. Please do not edit any other subpages belonging to S Marshall, as this will be considered disruptive. If you need to give a required notification to S Marshall in future, you will not be able to. You will need to state this at the time of raising an issue at AN, ANI etc. S Marshall has been blocked from editing your user page and talk page, and a similar warning has been issued re subpages. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:American classical liberals

Hello, WilliamJE,

Categories can not be deleted like articles or talk pages until they are empty. Could you please remove all of the contents from a category before you tag it for deletion and do so for this category? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you nominate a category for deletion at WP:CFD and the consensus says to delete, a bot will empty the contents for you and you will not have to do so manually. See this discussion on the American conservative liberals category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: WP:CFD says not to empty a category nominated for deletion while the CFD is going on. Even a CSD nominee doesn't guarantee deletion. Last year I made this speedy deletion nomination[17]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A related question for William and Liz. The template {{Memorial Tournament honorees}} has been nominated for deletion (Jack Nicklaus was last seen rolling over on his grave before going out for coffee and scones), and had been distributed to half of its 79 honorees pages before the nom. Should that distribution be halted while the discussion is in progress or should it continue? A sticky wicket. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit on the pan am 103?

The guy had written a poem commemorating the victims, why did you delete it? Davidefezz (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ReadWP:IPC....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... and WP:SPS, WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study

Hello WilliamJE! I noticed that you seem quite insistent on omitting one individual from the List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study article, arguing that said individual is not notable due to their not having their own article, and going so far as to remove the five-year-old word "all" from above the table after I pointed out its inclusion in the article to you. While it is indeed true that this individual does not have their own article, IAS faculty member is in itself a sufficiently notable position to warrant its own list article, so WP:LISTPEOPLE applies here: "in a few cases, such as lists of board members or academics holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." It is my strong belief that due to this policy and the nature of the list, and since you're not arguing that this individual isn't a faculty member, their name should be immediately restored. Best, Andrew11374265 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That was edited into the article long after it was created. Not all academics who worked somewhere aren't listed at innumerable pages around here. Try some Ivy League law school faculty list. Write an article the person if you're so insistent....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Eliza Kennedy Smith

Hi, WilliamJE. I'm reaching out to respectfully ask that you hold off on making any further edits to bio of Eliza Kennedy Smith that I am creating for the Women in Red project because your recent edits (including a revert of one of my reverts to your edits), while well meaning, have been premature, and are disrupting my current editing of this article. I had only just posted this new bio at 14:11 on July 18, 2021 when you began editing at 14:59 on July 18, 2021 - less than an hour after I had posted the article. In fact, you literally interrupted the edits I was making to the citation you've been questioning. Just as a bit of background for you, I am an experienced editor with Wikipedia:Autopatrolled status because I have a reliable history of creating clean articles, including several Good Articles and multiple B-class articles. So, your edits are really unnecessary at this point, and are actually hampering the development of this article. Respectfully, there are less experienced editors on Wikipedia who could genuinely benefit from your help. So, I'm writing to ask that you revert your edits, and allow me to finish my work. Thank you for your cooperation. 47thPennVols (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit/request is VERY improper. Any editor can edit any article at WP. You are committing WP:OWN, and this is such a bad violation from an editor who should know better (A WP account from 2015 with over 17,000 edits) I am seriously considering getting an administrator or reporting this at WP:ANI. You have made multiple mistakes in two articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrator @Acroterion: might want to chime in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is one reason why developing articles in userspace is often a good idea. However, I don't think that rapid-fire review as the article is being developed makes anybody very happy. Perhaps 47thPennVols will have a chance to work out the sourcing with a couple of hours of time to compose and review. This isn't a BLP, where time is of the essence. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you for your suggestion. It would be very helpful, and greatly appreciated if I could be given breathing room by WilliamJE since I was not "committing WP:OWN" as WilliamJE stated above. I was just simply politely asking him to stop editing a bio that I was working on because his edits felt premature and disruptive (something I'm sure WilliamJE did not intend). I have to say that I was genuinely surprised by, and am uncomfortable with, WilliamJE's statement above, "I am seriously considering getting an administrator or reporting this at WP:ANI" because that feels as if he is threatening me. Additionally, I'm also uncomfortable because the edit summaries that WilliamJE has been posting are beginning to feel hostile (example: "Sloppy editing again. The reference on the sentence says NO SUCH THING"), and because WilliamJE has also now begun editing another bio that I recently posted for Women in Red, Lucy Kennedy Miller, the timing of which seems odd. At this juncture, I'm still choosing to assume good faith that WilliamJE is not intending to make me feel uncomfortable since "Threatening another person is considered harassment" per Wikipedia's policies on Hounding and Threats, as is "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason." But because his behavior is beginning to cause distress for me, I am respectfully asking him to cease his editing of my work. @WilliamJE: Please stop. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, some room for 47thPennVols to develop the article would be helpful, and even a couple of days would not go amiss. There's no reason for WIlliamJE to take this to ANI - we all have some ownership vested in an article in its initial creation phase. WP:INSPECTOR applies here. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@47thPennVols, maybe place a Template:In use on it? That'll let other users know you're actively editing and ask them not to edit-conflict with you. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, with all due respect. My views on cleaning up mistakes at WP here are pretty well known. Read here[18] here[19], and here[20]. I don't care if its a BLP article or one about a plane crash[21]. Mistakes and sloppy editing need to be fixed not brushed aside. This editor is whining about me fixing his shit around here. This misguided editor doesn't know the difference between a political activist and a politician too[22]. See they don't like they are being corrected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW I recently created this article[23]. What did I do minutes later? Post to the related WP talk page inviting editors[24] to fix it up if they wished....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: and @Valereee: There was an edit conflict while I was trying to type this: "@Acroterion: and @Valereee: Thank you both for your suggestions. I will add the template to see if that will bring an end to the problem, but it appears that I may need to ask for the articles to be protected from editing for a period of time because WilliamJE just reverted another of my changes, despite my asking him, again, to cease his editing of my work. I still want to believe that he is not intending to cause distress, but at this point, he is most definitely causing distress. Would there be a way to "page protect" these two articles for a few days?" 47thPennVols (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

He comes here to whine. The editor doesn't know the difference[25] between a political activist and a politician and gets upset because they get corrected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is an encyclopedia collaboratively edited by everybody, a greater degree of patience and forbearance is desirable - calling a reasonable complaint "whining" isn't helpful. There are no deadlines, and you are free to post a review on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the second time you've characterized the concerns of another well-intentioned editor as whining. WJE, I think it might be best if you step away from that article for now. There are no deadlines. Let the other editor create in peace. Circle back in a couple weeks, maybe. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It was whining. If somebody came along and fixed my edits on a new article, I would have thanked them. Ask Acroterion how many times I have thanked him for some edit. Second- WP has a bad problem and I have been saying it for a long time. I call it garbage with a reference or aka putting something in an article which the reference doesn't say. Here's an a case[26][27] of one of WP's biggest editors doing just that. Just the other day an editor with over 30,000 edits thought restoring content[28] where the IC said no such thing was good editing too. Check my recent edit history and see how many times a summary of mine says 'IC says no such thing' IC is inline citation Third- The editor who cleans up these messes, this case in point but here's an exchange[29][30] from just a few days ago, are made out as the bad people. Is WP an encyclopedia or a work of fiction?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

After under an hour since creation, when most creators are still doing major heavy lifting? Please give this editor some space to finish working. There are no deadlines. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It is very clear he was committing WP:OWN. This editor put in use templates on two articles then didn't make a single edit to either article since t then (two weeks ago). His lack of sincerity is clear and you, @Valereee: think I'm the bad editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WJE, I don't think you're a bad editor at all. Which two articles have had in use templates on them for two weeks with no edits? —valereee (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they had in Use templates on them for two weeks. They put a in use template on the pages and then abandoned them aka hadn't come back to edit either over the last two weeks. BTW another editor, not myself, took those templates off the pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eliza Kennedy Smith

On 4 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eliza Kennedy Smith, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eliza Kennedy Smith's investigations of municipal corruption in Pittsburgh led to the mayor's arrest and imprisonment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eliza Kennedy Smith. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eliza Kennedy Smith), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2003 disestablishments in Utah

A tag has been placed on Category:2003 disestablishments in Utah 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!} 17:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Airports disestablished in 1974

A tag has been placed on Category:Airports disestablished in 1974 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!} 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Iberia Fight 602

I took a look at what was not backed up. I assume it was the first class re-design, and the passenger's and/or crew, the immediate post accident actions, and/or the memorial?Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There are references on sentences that don't belong there. I've been complaining about this stuff ever since this[31] and in multiple talk page conversations. Here is one instance[32] at Ahunt's talk page. Ahunt does aviation accident article editing too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is another talk page discussion[33] where I express my views on improper referencing. That came after the Naomi Ishisaka debacle. An editor named Factfanatic (Irony thy name is wikipedia) accused a person of attempted murder even though they had a different name. That editor had references on sentences supposedly backing up their claims. Which they did not bu the article stood for two weeks because none of multiple editors checked the referencing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking over the translation a second time. I'm removing sentences that do not belong there as well as unreliable references.Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1874 establishments in Singapore

A tag has been placed on Category:1874 establishments in Singapore 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!} 17:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Fresh Meadow Country Club categorization. Comment

Hi. Thank you for your comment on my category edit of Fresh Meadow Country Club. I am currently categorizing a number of articles, and I may have accidentally mis-categorized the article. In the lede of the article, the second sentence states that "The club opened in the New York City borough of Queens in 1923…" so I categorized it under "1923 establishments in New York City". --HugoHelp (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Aloha airlines incident 1988

I worked on that aircraft installing the rivets that failed. It was my first day on the job and I was fired for installing approx 100 rivets wrong . Big meeting with guys in suits examining my work.one of them asked me if I was trying to kill a plane load of people. Contact me on FB. 174.213.145.28 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

reverting/civility

I'm not at all sure why I would need to explain WP:BRD to someone who has made over 120K edits over almost sixteen years, but I think it pretty obviously applies to the addition of the "hidden template" to multiple articles about places in Alaska. There is not a consensus to mass-add that thing to articles. Restoring after the addition was reverted was unhelpful. If you wish to join the discussion of it I have commented about it on the talk page of the user who added it, and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people sections of towns/cities all across the US, the discussion that apparently led them to believe this was actually a good idea.

As for your comments in your edit summary here [34] regarding civility, I was criticizing that hideously formatted, overblown set of orders in a hidden comment. It is not uncivil to call it what it is, obnoxious. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Obnoxious and is being uncivil. It was uncalled for. There are hidden templates in NP sections all over WP. I edit these sections many times and have been seeing them for a decade. If you do NP work you'd know about them too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute here

Hello William,

I know that you have done a lot of work on "Notable people" lists before, and so I am reaching out to you. I am just trying to add birth and death date information to names on "Notable people" lists across the encyclopedia, and Magnolia677 continues to revert my work, and worse, have now claimed that it is "disruptive" editing. I would like to invite you to comment here please, if you have the time and have an opinion towards building consensus on this matter. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 20:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi again William, and Happy Thanksgiving! Hoping to get your contribution if you might participate in this ongoing discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Seeking additional feedback for templated example of form for "Notable people" contributions (see below and please comment). I am trying to form consensus, and I fear that without support, I will have to stop adding birth and death years to "Notable people" sections. If you find my work helpful or worthwhile, your support would mean the world to me. ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass media companies established in

Hi William Please stop removing the "Category:Mass media companies (dis)established in yyyy"" from the entertainment categories, .g. [35]. You have provided no reason for these widespread but selective removals. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop overcategorizing. Entertainment companies established is a subcategory of companies established in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please STOP while we discuss this.

Per WP:BRD, I will revert. Then we can discuss more. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Entertainment categories established or disestablished in is a subcategory of Companies established or disestablished in. They don't go in both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a good idea, it should be done systematically, not piecemeal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Restaurants disestablishments are not in both food and drink companies disestablishments and companies disestablishments, Railway companies not in both transport companies disestablishments and companies disestablishments, Banks disestablishments are not in both financial service companies and companies disestablishments, Vehicle manufacturing companies disestablishments are not in both manufacturing disestablishments and companies disestablishments so on and so on. Do I need to cite ten more examples?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You miss the point.

Railway companies are all transport companies.

However, the situation with mass media companies is not so neat. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

William, you have gone about this really badly.

Yesterday, you removed a bunch of e "Category:Mass media companies (dis)established in yyyy"" from the entertainment categories with no edit summary. You didn't declare what you were doing, let alone why.

So I used AWB to systematically restore the parent categories. Then you began reverting, again with no explanation.

That is not how things work here. Your mass action was being challenged, so per WP:BRD you should stop instead of edit warring. But you went into a third round of reverting my re-adds, without any attempt to discuss.

Now to the core issue. This is one of the cases where a simplistic reading of WP:SUBCAT gives bad answers. The problem is that the set of "mass media companies" includes: a) companies which are purely entertainment (e.g. an early film company); b) companies which are not entertainment, such as CNN; c) companies which are both entertainment and factual, such as the BBC or RTE.

The only way to accommodate this is to parent "mass media" companies in both "companies established in YYYY" and "entertainment companies established in YYYY".

Now, I get that you disagree. Fine. But please discuss rather than edit-warring ... and if a consensus is reached, we should use AWB to apply a solution consistently to all the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumping something in both doesn't fix something that's misleading. It overcategorizes. Fix how the misleading category is used. Bad categorizing is ridiculous around here. Hospitality companies established for instance. There are about 85 of these pages but only twelve or so entries in them. The rest are subcategories- hotels and restaurants. Do you know Hospitality categories are subcategorized transport companies. How are hotels and restaurants transport companies? Better yet read the description on every transport companies established page and see that hospitality wouldn't belong there. Which makes a point for me, Mass media companies need to be described on their pages as to what does and doesn't belong there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

William, if we are going to have any chance of reaching a consensus, we need to stick to mass media companies.

What exactly are you proposing? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If mass media is misleading or unclear (Remember WP:SUBJECTIVECAT) , and mostly a depository for subcategories or categories that can be placed somewhere else, why not delete them?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. No, "mass media" is not unclear and not misleading. See mass media. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why are you trying to overcategorize because something fit your description?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning

I suggest to you that you stop removing sourced content. [36] If you continue then I'm going to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Libracarol (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What I removed wasn't referenced. Go ahead and take me to ANI but be ready for a WP:BOOMERANG after I point out the many problems with your editing. Not referenced, bogus referencing, SYNTH and more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

False referencing like you did here[37] isn't going to go over very well at ANI because I can point out multiple instances, here is just one example,[38] of it in that article and another....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Re:Sportspeople from...

Hi WilliamJE - re edits like this, those general sportspeople categories are being temporarily retained to make it easier to search for coaches, executives, journalists, and officials (categories for them are going to be started once I've finished the player categories) - please don't remove any of them! I've rolled back the lasty 60 or so edits of the sort made by you - please revert the others, otherwise the articles will not get the appropriate coach etc categories. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop. I've explained why those categories are temporarily necessary. All you are doing by removing them is creating major disruption on a large-scale editing scheme. At the least, wait a couple of weeks until the coaches categories have been started in earnest, and then you will see how useful their current use as markers is. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking you to ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grutness...wha? 11:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,827 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Bland

To me, ...Bland, who is enjoying a late career renaissance after his victory at last year’s British Masters... (source) supports this statement: "Bland's resurgence continued into the 2022 season..." (although it could perhaps be phrased better). Do you not? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1- One wire service (AP and not Doug Ferguson) writer's opinion 2- There is too much of this descriptive writing in golf articles. As seen by my recent edit here[39] or more famously here[40]. I've been taking this stuff out of golf articles for ages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but while I agree that there is a proliferation of excessive detail and unsupported fluff that absolutely should be removed (and it's across all sports, not just golf), you haven't really answered the question. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You're not reading me. One anonymous wire service reporter's opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the question is that your ES stated that the IC did not support the statement. You now seem to be conceding that it does, however you still object to it for different reasons. Is that correct? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 01:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't quote the article. Resurgence isn't renaissance. Creative writing class....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? Here's Ewen Murray in The Guardian using the word resurgence in the same context ("Bland, enjoying a career resurgence at 48..."). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 01:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You linked to an SI article where resurgence was never used. Read WP:SUBJECTIVE too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems I wasn't clear. Renaissance and resurgence are synonymous ([41], [42], etc.), and The Guardian, while primarily linked to illustrate that, also clearly shows it is not "one anon opinion". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, just vague-waving at Ps&Gs is unhelpful. Perhaps you could quote and clarify your understanding/interpretation? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)