Jump to content

User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

misapplication of WP:CIRCULAR

I have reverted a large number of edits that purported to be justified by WP:CIRCULAR. WP:CIRCULAR refers to sourcing to Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it, however, none of your edits actually involved sourcing to Wikipedia or sources that mirror or use it. Please review the policy before make more edits of this nature. Thanks. Dlabtot (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is circular. The source is wikipedia. In fact all the list is all the episodes and links to them. As WP:CIRCULAR states "Similarly, do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing." A links to B that links right back to A. That is circular and that's exactly what it is episode links to list which links to article.
Ask yourself, what on that list is being used as a source of information for the episode article? Certainly not a source for the plot or episode number or cast. None of that information is there. It's not a source for information in the article.
By automatically undoing edits you also reverted back into articles original research, trivia, and fan ratings that have aren't supposed to be there. Check Cardassians, and The Storyteller for example. You're carelessness and shooting first ask questions later I find very uncivil. You wrote here, after you did your dirty work. Dirty work- Not reading all the edit summaries before undoing. It's obvious you didn't.
And I'll be reverting in the morning....William 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will refrain from edit-warring and defer your reverts till the conclusion of the discussion. BTW, I didn't 'automatically' undo any edits, and have no idea where you got that idea. I looked carefully at each and every of the edits I reverted. Your assertion to the contrary seems an assumption of bad faith and a borderline personal attack. Please refrain from such in the future - let's discuss the content of the articles only. The place to discuss edits on any particular article is on that article talk page.
To wit, I have chosen an example article and started an WP:RfC on the article Playing God: Talk: RfC: Is a reference to the DVD of a TV series an example of [[WP:CIRCULAR]]?.
I hope you will participate in the discussion there. Dlabtot (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. There are no editors empowered to make 'rulings'. Please att least try to familiarize yourself with our core policies before you lecture others. Dlabtot (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not understand that

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set, volume 2, disc 1, selection 3.

is not a reference to Wikipedia? It is a reference to a DVD published by Paramount. What is so difficult about this concept? Can you please explain the reason that you object to this reference? Dlabtot (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also again like to ask that you drop the confrontational attitude, refrain from accusing me of vandalism or other personal attacks, and attempt to collaborate with me to make a better encyclopedia. Please explain why you think a reference to the DVD of a tv show is an inappropriate reference in an article about that tv show. Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette assistance

FYI, I have placed a notice on the Wikiquette assistance noticeboard. [1] Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring not resolving dispute in good faith; violating spirit of WP:3RR, as you did at Template:Criminal due process‎‎. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —EncMstr (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No warning. Other editor was not punished and he immediately reverted as soon as this suspension. The administrator who also put this block in place has a COI because they are a party to the ongoing conversation and supporter of the other editor

Decline reason:

This block in face appears valid, as you do not need to break wP:3RR in order to violated WP:EW. Your unblock also discusses "punishment", which is not the purpose of blocks. It also violates WP:EBUR and WP:NOTTHEM. Please see WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is insane. Guilty until proved innocent! The administrator who blocks me also a supporter of the editor that I'm in dispute. Of impartiality. Don't think I won't file some kind of complaint against EncMstr when this is over. Though from past experience, I expect it to be a waste of time. Where was 3RR then?...William 22:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So am I still blocked? Check the talk page of the template, you'll note this administrator's support of another editor. He has a COI....William 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding disruptive editing. The thread is request block review of WilliamJE.The discussion is about the topic Template:Criminal due process. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think I know about that? I do and I can't even point out how you're abusing your administrator powers at that board. So the game is rigged. As I said Guilty until proven innocent. If I could just contact an impartial administrator who I judge as fair, but I can't on all this, but I can't. You've accused me of not doing things in good faith but another editor has multiple times refused to put up proof and called my compromise proposal as nonsensical. It's so obvious you are not impartial in this. Another Administrator just ruled you jumped the gun. Talk about administrating in bad faith...William 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that intended to actually be an unblock request? You need to remove the tlx| if it is. This block in face appears valid, as you do not need to break wP:3RR in order to violated WP:EW. Your unblock also discusses "punishment", which is not the purpose of blocks. Italso violates WP:EBUR and WP:NOTTHEM. So, in other words, before you remove the tlx| part, you might want to fix it according to WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No the unblock request was up top. Now its in bold so you can't be confused. I'm accusing this administrator of bad faith and COI and that's what I replied to....William 23:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tlx part as I advised, and will be declining it in a moment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think you may be confused about what WP:COI is about. Perhaps you are thinking about WP:INVOLVED? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's involved all right and violating WP policy then by blocking me. So where's the reversal?...William 23:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously did not read WP:INVOLVED yet. The blocking admin advised you of policy. That does not mean he has taken sides, even though that policy appears to support the other editor. Please read WP:GAB for your options, and also the potential repercussions of additional edits to this page that do not address your behaviour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, not only edit warring, but showed a combative attitude and not listening when it suits him. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Selective reading. Here[2] and here[3] at least, asking Savidan to produce where the series came from. He never replied. Made a compromise proposal[4], Savidan called it nonsensical[5].

I'd say it's pretty borderline involved. EncMstr made a couple of comments, but I wouldn't really consider it as being a full blown dispute like WilliamJE had with Savidan. 23:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He's involved to quote involved 'In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.' Involved is construed broadly, remember? Savidan sought out this administrator here.[6] EnCMster violated involved, he is a part to this and should have called on another administrator before a block or bothered to read my last edit to the talk page where I was called nonsensical at the same time Savidan turned down a reasonable request again. I'm accused of edit warring? The uncompromising one was Savidan....William 00:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read the WP:ANI report ... consensus is that the blocking admin is not involved, and that this block is valid. You'll want to rethink your direction here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then most of you must not be able to understand the words. 'Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community,' Why don't all of you write what it should really say. Involvement is generally construed very narrowly by the community,' otherwise all of you are in violation of WP policy....William 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savidan was editing within policy. You were not; the redlinks in the templates are pefectly acceptable. I'm sorry, but this is justified. Now whether or not he too should have been warned or blocked, I don't know, but there's nothing here to overturn the block, IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bushranger, this is a joke. I in good faith tried compromise and got called nonsensical. I asked on multiple occasions for him to produce and got silence. Check those wikilinks up above.
Savidan claims these cases are a series but they aren't, they are his WP:OR. Read his reply to my bit about no probable cause cases prior to 1952.
An adminstrator who was a party to the conversation slapped a block on me in violation of involved. Its to be broadly read and he was a party to the conversation so he should have asked first before blocking. Then his block is partly based on 3RR violation and you yourself say it didn't happen. You and the ANI board are giving the admin and Savidan every possible break but not one for me. That's one of the reasons why I say administrators here are a joke. Read my user page. If an administrator is doubly wrong and everyone writes it off, its a sad state of affairs here and I have been saying that for a while. Want to see a case of an IP editor vandalizing and the administrators standing by and doing nothing? Or the case where an editor was harrassing me over leaving no edit summaries when WP says they aren't required but administrators and the same editor making repeated posts to this talk page when I asked him not to but I was made into the bad guy for not being reasonable. This is just further proof. I still mean it when I said it over the reasonable business. The Administrators were doing the equivalent of blaming a rape victim for the assault done to them. Today its administrators slapping the rapist on the back and telling him good job! Yes, the administrator twice didn't apply WP guidelines or acted incorrectly but he's to applauded for it. When its all over with I am going to file a complaint against all administrator involved. To put it on the record that it was perfectly fine for a administrator to incorrectly enforce WP policy and clearly violate. If you can't see the WP:INVOLVED, all of you are also wrong....William 02:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As neither an admin, nor an involved editor, nor even the friend of an admin or involved editor, really, a rape victim? that's who you compare yourself to now? You were blocked for 24 hours, that's a couple of meals, a shopping trip, and a nap. That seems the same as being raped to you, really? Let's try and keep perspective here. I get that you don't think you should have been blocked, and I get that you think the admins are not following policy, but please, no one has threatened you with bodily harm and emotionally scarred you for life here... Additionally, referring to that admin as a "rapist" sounds a whole lot like a personal attack that would be likely to get you blocked even longer, you may want to walk away from the keyboard for a while before you cause yourself any other problems inadvertently. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 03:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
William, I have a friend who's a rape victim. I'm sorry, but you've just lost every ounce of respect I ever had for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't suffered physical abuse at the hands of authority figures and then had other people in authority or even your friends write off the lawbreaker's conduct in one way or another. That happened to me in real life. I despise facilitators and that's what we have here. An administrator applied a rule incorrectly at the same time violating WP's own rules of conduct, and with one or two exceptions, you all think its fine and dandy. Shame on you and those people back in the 1970's and 1980's I had the misfortune of dealing with....William 22:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lowest this guy has been unfourtuently. Qantasplanes (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, or by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air Class aircraft missing in the River Plate

Hi WilliamJE. Regarding the article Air Class aircraft missing in the River Plate, I have just expanded it a little bit, and put a comment on the Talk page. And I am afraid this article is going to state soon: "... the crew were found dead in the River Plate", as they have been missing since June 6. The relevance of this article is that it might the first aviation accident ever of a Uruguayan airline with people dead... Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opportunity

Your rather bizarre interpretation of WP:INVOLVED (which is contrary to a) how it's written and b) WP:CONSENSUS ) is now getting you in trouble. I have seen your edits to your userpage. I'm going to give you the opportunity to actually read WP:INVOLVED, the ANI filing, and THEN remove your mistaken commentary against the blocking admin ... or else you will soon have a new blocking admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Involved and that administrator wrote two times to that thread for the combined total of 997 of space and one of four editors in the conversation. INVOLVED is 'in general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.' He was involved, at least one administrator thought so too writing 'Not good, per involved.'[7] and he was making the exact same quote I'm using above about involved being read broadly. 'Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (Emphasis mine.)' [[8]] So is that administrator bizarre too?...William 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else aside, lose the rape references here and on your user page, at least replace them with some kind of bizarre hitler/jews analogy like all the other people that have trouble with a sense of scale around here. I personally find those rape comments extremely offensive. I seriously doubt you can find a rape victim who feels that a 24 hour ban from Wikipedia is an equivalent thing to what they went through. It shows a level of thoughtlessness that you may want to reconsider, and then feel free to delete these comments. (On the other hand, it's your talk page, you can delete my comments now if you want to, but I'd urge you to consider my request first please) -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My edit here[9] says why I feel this way. Scale is never insignificant to the sufferer of phyiscal abuse, its just an excuse used to downplay it....William 01:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY. You're online and editing ... you'll be blocked momentarily and unable to do either soon. You have WHOLLY misread WP:INVOLVED - there's nothing you have said that supports any suggestion that he was involved, period. You're digging deep, and finding air. Last chance to remove (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the WP policy and calling what I say bizarre when another administrator said it isn't. Tell me why he isn't bizarre if I am and why broadly in INVOLVED isn't applicable? By the way I'm trying to write all this up as administrator abuse right at this moment....William 01:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff above should help you understand why it's completely wrong of someone to belittle a rape victim's experience by comparing it to an editing block on Wikipedia, NOT used as justification for it! Scale is unimportant? I dont' see anyone else suggesting we offer to rape people instead of giving 24 hour blocks, Why? Because they are not the same thing, and one is obviously tremendously more serious than the other. I get that you're upset by what's happened, but stop and think for a moment here. Even if you want to ignore me, you've got an admin who's already blocked you, who's gone out of his way twice now to convince you to remove the offensive text, either way, it's likely to be removed, there's no WP:POINT to be made here, salvage some dignity and remove it yourself man. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William, "rules" at wikipedia aren't arbitrary. They are based on the consensus view, just as everything at Wikipedia is. In this instance, the admin went to ANI to report a potential conflict, which isn't required, but is good practice. The community discussed, and the consensus was that while there was some involvement, it wasn't too involved according to the policies here. Consensus always trumps written words, per the 5th column of the WP:Five pillars and WP:IAR. If you expect people to respect your concerns about the block, you have to respect when the consensus is against you, and it was. I closed the discussion after examining the discussion, and the closing statement speaks for itself.[10] In this instance, his limited involvement wasn't ideal, but was also not a breach. You don't get to quote rules that the consensus created if you want to ignore the consensus elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Everyone's information

I'm going to bed. It's 10 p.m. almost and that's when I usually shut down for the night. Check my edit history if you don't believe it.[11] Tomorrow means Sunday mass at 7:30 a.m. and me only being online for a limited period till 10 a.m. See you after that....William 01:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate user page content removed

You and I have absolutely no history that I am aware of; I believe I am a completely uninvolved administrator who came here after reading about you on WP:ANI.

I've edited your user page, removing some inappropriate content per WP:UPNOT. Your userpage is not a WP:COATRACK to air your grievances or vent about your thinly veiled beefs with specific editors and/or administrators. Please do not restore that material or add any other similar material.

Upon looking through your recent activity here, It seems like you've developed a highly confrontational, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in dealing with others. I hope after your religious events tomorrow, you return with a much less confrontational attitude and behaviour. If you do not, and continue to act out upon your grudges, you'll likely be blocked again, almost certainly for much longer, perhaps indefinitely.

We're based on a cooperative, community here. Of course we have conflicts, but we need to move beyond them if we're going to edit here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and it has been removed once again. Please do not re-add as per the information provided above = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

Hi, just a note to let you know that I added an {{unsigned}} template to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of henchmen

Are you certain the henchmen articles can't be sourced with out of universe info?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The henchmen articles were all re-directs to start with. What I've been doing is redirecting them to the same page instead of one henchmen article redirecting to the movie, another to the list of villians page, and another to the list of henchmen page. Now they all redirect to the henchmen page.
I've been discussing my work with User Schrodinger's cat is alive at his talk page.[User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive]. My edits are in good faith, and if you check the talk page I found a few minor mistakes to Diamonds are Forever. Could you come over to the talk page and discuss your concerns there? IMHO the henchmen, with the exception of Oddjob and Jaws, should be redirects to the list page and not every movie have its own page....William 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Golf in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Golf for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LAN Chile 107

G'day, there's no need whatsoever to apologise to me. As we say in this part of the world, "it's all good". Cheers :-) YSSYguy (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my typos....William 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now it doesn't look anything like the work of our "friend". As for the typos, no worries; I do them myself - I have to be very careful to check that I haven't typed "aircrfat". YSSYguy (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the Somali F27 crash, you're quite right - the airport wasn't renamed until 2007 according to its WP article. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The collapse of the Kamov - 27 in Kazan November 26, 1980

Hi William, out of curiosity, how is this Afd process related to New York? That crash took place in Kazan, Soviet Union, so I was wondering about the tag you applied to the discussion. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake which you could have corrected or better yet hit the refresh button rather than come over to my talk page. The fix was done before you posted here. Nominating a article for deletion takes time and work much of which is cutting and pasting. Go pick on somebody else's hard work....William 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niterói circus fire

I'm afraid that was added by someone later on - I don't speak Portuguese, either. I did make mention of the word "arson" in my stub, but that's supported by a number of sources (including, as I recall, the Guiness Book of World Records). Wish I could be of more help, sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments

Hi William, I noticed at this and this edit that you forgot to add an edit comment when deleting the entries. Please be careful about this, as it leaves your fellow editors guessing why you chose to delete it. On the surface those both look like reasonable incidents to include on the list. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

MacRobertson Miller Airlines Flight 1750

On 27 July you deleted some information from the See also section - see your diff. I have reverted your deletion for the following reason:
The Manual of Style/Layout gives relevant advice at WP:SEEALSO. It states “Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:
• Related person — made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
• Ischemia — restriction in blood supply"
Regards. Dolphin (t) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

Hi William. Please take a look at this. Thanks!--Jetstreamer Talk 19:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palair Macedonian Airlines Flight 301

Good article, have added the photo and changed the infobox. The latest infobox can be found at [[Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence}}. When you've creates an article it is usual to open the talk page with a project banner;in this case

{{WPAVIATION|class=start | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = | b3 <!--Structure --> = | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =y|Accident=y}}

The B-clas checklist doesn't have to be filled out as it is frowned upon to self assess higher than start class, but it is good manners to include it so the assessor can get on with the job. Happy editting/article writingPetebutt (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Should Joseph Baldwin Academy be nominated for AfD?

Hi William. Can you look at Joseph Baldwin Academy and see if you think it should be nominated for AfD? I can't establish any notability at all; no qualifying coverage at all. The article is about a summer program for kids that takes place at Truman State University. The whole thing simply looks like an advertisement or brochure for the program and all the sourcing is to the program's own website pages. The article even has the program's Summer 2012 schedule. Also, if you look at the talk page, the article has been written solely by their students as a project. If you think it should be nominated, can you start the AfD? I don't know how to do it. Thanks! --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the type of article I know the WP criteria for. Yes I do alot of AFDs, but most are either Aviation or Sports related. All other AFDs I've done that don't fit those two I doubt number more than 10 or 12. Sorry I can't help....William 00:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Kudos for withdrawing the bad nomination on the Maine politician when you realized you had made a mistake. Things would run more smoothly at WP if we all could admit our inevitable minor goofs as they happen. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maulty Moore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milligan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UAL Flight 585 Crash

Notifying you, as a courtesy, that I restored the names of the crewmembers on UAL 585, that you deleted. Many Wiki crash articles contain names of the crewmembes and I can see no good reason for removing them in that one. The article is already very short, so being too big cannot be a valid reason to pare out valid information. Thanks, 66.81.52.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion of this issue on the talk page, here Please respond at your first opportunity. Thanks, 66.81.53.174 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen C-130 incident in 1969

G'day from Oz; it looks like the incident actually happened, I found plenty of refs for it on the internet - one even mentions the name of the guy who stole it. I'm not fussed about putting it back in the article, which is/was a favourite haunt of Rk anyway and was probably added by him. YSSYguy (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this, I have learnt something today :-) YSSYguy (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out to me and I restored it. I made a mistake. A story like this, and that I couldn't find a news article on it on the first page of a google news search and in light of who created that article, set off too many alarm bells. They were false ones of course. I learned something new too. Maybe I should run things like this by the aviation task force talk page, or an editor like you, jetstreamer, The Bushranger, or one of a couple of others, to make sure I'm not missing something.
Could you possibly put your two bits in over here[12]? Oh and I discovered a way of checking for possible RK created articles. Go here[13] and if you have Firefox(or another web browser that allows the same type search) do a word search of the page looking for either flight or crash. If something comes up, check who the article's creator is and find out if its quacking.
And I created my 39th crash article on Saturday. British Eagle International Airlines Flight 802, the worst aviation disaster ever to happen in Austria. My next article will be about a fighter jet crashing[14] into a California ice cream parlor killing over 20 people....William 13:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I'm sure you have read WP:3RR, but you may not be aware that it pertains to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909. Even if you don't make 3 reverts within 24 hours, you still could be blocked for edit warring if you are not careful. It's better to just keep to the discussion on the currently open TfD, and wait until that concludes. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael5046 has been told to take it to the Aviation accident talk page on multiple occasions. The templates are for independent articles and I know you're aware of that. You've done yeoman work on neatening up other templates. Michael5046 is ignoring the independent article requirement also. Nothing that's on template meets the definition[15] of an aviation accident or incident. He also deleted the TFD template(you restored it). He's not edit warring and not to mention vandalizing...William 16:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Activism1234 23:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash

Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:WilliamJE reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't violate 3RR and that's the reason being used at the board 24 hours for 3RR violation. for blocking me. My edits were explained

2nd proof- The removal of 4 EL that were being used already as IC. That's removing repetition not edit warring.

3rd and 4th proofs- The source for something taking place in Feb 2012 was from August 2011. A source being used was from a blog, which WP:RS covers. Instead of fixing his edits and coming up with a better source, he put it back up again. Note I said here I'm stepping away and that came before any warnings or this discussion.

1st edit- I put the speedy deletion tag back up. This administrator told me on his talk page[16] that a CSD can be taken down by someone other than the creator. So I admitted my error. The editor who made the report made repeated lies in his statements, aka my messing up the page's format. I don't think the blocking administrator spent enough time on this.

Decline reason:

You're not unblocked for 3RR. 3RR is an electric fence - touch it and you're a roast, however it's not an entitlement to make 3 or less reverts per article per day. Regardless of editors' motives, they must not edit war even if they believe they're right. Max Semenik (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator at the message board clearly cites[17] Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. Then you come back and cite I am a roast if I violate it. Tell me how this differentiates from this[18]? 3 reverts and edit warring but no violation. The complaining editor lied when he came here. And you've rewarded him. Is lying and blocking someone for the something they haven't done what WP stands for?...William 13:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello WilliamJE. As the blocking admin, I did count four reverts. I see that you could have wondered about removal of the G4 speedy deletion tag, but you did choose to restore it. Your restoration counts as a revert. So if you check the four reverts listed by Activism1234 in the report, they all appear to be reverts to me. I didn't try to evaluate any of the charges of 'lying,' I was only counting reverts. Neither of you was using much diplomacy, and Activism's choice to file at 3RR was understandable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of repetitive material aka duplicate links is a revert? Then about 100 edits of mine in the last month is a revert. Did you actually look at this edit before shooting off a block or my edit history? You said you didn't evaluate any of the charges of lying. Activism's complaint included bogus charges which I countered. You just counted without investigating and your counting was garbage as was the block.

No, you nor any other administrator will ever admit it. Once you're caught making mistakes, you circle the wagons. You cite 3RR incorrectly(And this isn't the first time) and have double standards for applying it. Involved administrators can block people, other administrators sign off on it and misapply involved in the process, but themselves won't get involved in a content dispute because of their earlier involvment. Then wasn't the blocking involved administrator wrong? Double standards for people and protecting your own. That's what WP administrators stand for and there is plenty of proof....William 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that your removal of the four links was a contentious edit that would be opposed by the other parties. If you intended it as only a style improvement then that brings you below four reverts and admins might reach a different conclusion. In my opinion this is still a case of edit warring. If you will agree to stay away from editing this article for two weeks, your block could be lifted. You can still participate in discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed instead of studying the edit, the talk page, or my long history of removing repetitive links(AKA See alsos mostly) out of articles. Here[19], here[20], here[21]. That's just a small sample, the other day I spent time removing people who were in a parent category when they were already in a subcategory. Here[22], Here[23], and here[24] Just 3 examples of 15-25 such edits I made on Sept 21 and are in my last 500 edit history. Not to mention all the cleanup work I do on aviation articles. It earned me a barnstar. Look at the top of my User page. Also note I wrote not once[25] but twice[26] I was stepping away till an administrator came in. A administrator didn't speedy delete the article. I was then going to AFD it again. Today, that was my plan[27]. If you had looked at my recent edit history, you could have found that. I had stepped away(And it even says so at where activism made his complaint/ So it being buried in a long talk page discussion and therefore you missing it can't be used as an excuse), planned on doing a course of action that's allowable and had support, so why block me unless to punish which isn't the purpose of blocking? Preventing disruption. No you blocked me because you assumed rather than look at the facts, my edit history, etc. Is it any wonder then I think very little of WP's administrators. A administrator blocked me for 3rr once when I didn't even violate it and other administrators agreed on that but left the block in place. The administrator was involved too but that was written off. That's a bad joke and so is the block you did to me.
Why don't you remove the block and fess up to making a mistake or since the 24 hours is gone or close to it, apologize for assuming and counting instead of checking out the facts? Plus I don't have to walk away from fixing an article. What will happen is I will AFD it again. It was AFD before(By me[28] but I have AFD 20-25 aviation crash articles since last Christmas at least. Here are two[29] more[30] plus a third example[31] for you. Remember too I got those two barnstars because of AFD work I've done.) and an experienced editor recreated it instead of taking it to DRV. Another administrator thinks[32] the article is a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. AFDing it isn't edit warring. I will abide by the outcome and continue maintaining the articles just like I have with other AFDs which didn't go the way I thought they should. Here[33], here[34], and here[35]. I will edit out any other repetitiveness and overkill aka bombardment if its in the article. There are at least two more duplicate links in the article. Another issue is its style- We don't list dead in crash articles unless they're notable and another aviation editor who edited it agreed[36]. Instead of doing fixes, I might just list the repetitiveness and bombardment as proof the article has been just cosmetically changed whereas its lack of notability hasn't. You and I both know rewriting or expanding an article doesn't necessarily make something notable. I don't AFD to edit war. I AFD to purge non notable subjects from Wikipedia....William 02:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were anticipating the re-deletion of the article at a second AfD, that doesn't explain your decision to engage in a hand-to-hand struggle with the other editor. Warring over the speedy tag? You could have asked an admin about removal of the G4 tag, since I personally think the removal is questionable. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're clueless and still grasping for justification for your bonehead block. An apology would be nice but you can't admit that you failed to do even the most elementary homework before slapping a block on an editor. You took the word of a complaining editor at face value. To quote "I had assumed that your removal of the four links was a contentious edit that would be opposed by the other parties. If you intended it as only a style improvement then that brings you below four reverts and admins might reach a different conclusion." WP:ELRC reads "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and meet the above criteria." The more you write, the more it sounds you did it for punishment not for preventing disruption. Which is clearly a violation of what blocks are for. When are you going to get blocked for abusing administrator priviliges? I didn't edit war over a speedy deletion. Obviously you didn't read too closely The Bushranger's talk page which I referred to above. Another thing, the reverts here and here. What was removed was clearly wrong aka a 2011 reference for a 2012 event. See IC#19 here. Removal of wrong conte The IC don't match the material they are referring to and the Ziv quote looks to be out of thin air. Where is it on either webpage? How is the removal of obviously wrong content edit warring?
Administrators like people in the justice system should be held to a higher standard because you have been given the power to take away people's freedom. When are you going to block yourself for 48 hours for your bonehead block or give up your administrator's rights for failing to know wp policy and instead doing a driveby block based on assumption? I don't expect an answer to the above or an apology. You're a perfect example of why I consider administrators bad jokes around here....William 10:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Pan Am Flight 125

Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pan Am Flight 125, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. I have undeleted the original 2005 page history so that editors can see what a small article it was when deleted back then. – Fayenatic London 17:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to undo the G4 but the size or quality of an article isn't supposed to have any bearing on whether something is notable. This incident fails WP:AIRCRASH and I AFD it....William 17:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash

I have closed your nomination as a result of your apparent eagerness (this has possibly resulted to a bias) to having the article deleted despite multiple warnings and blocks. I honestly believe that the article contains sufficient content and reliable sources. If you disagree, please take your issues to the article's talk page, not by nominating and speedy tagging the article. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only bias here is another wikipedia administrator or editor not doing there homework. No multiple warnings and no multiple blocks. In fact I'd like to see anyone even produce one warning. They can't, because no such thing took place. So again I am being accused by an administrator or editor wrongly. I announced my intention to again AFD this on Sunday night[37] before the Speedy was declined. That intention was restated above. No where on wikipedia is it stated I can't AFD it again. Now will you reinstate the afd and apologize or do I have to bring this to ANI where I'll show my long history of AFDs, aviation edits, recent talk page posts etc, that you have either no knowledge of or are ignoring. Plus how one editor and administrator jumped to conclusions wrongly and one of which has already admitted incorrect assuming. Maybe its time for blocks against those making false accusations and false blocks....William 20:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSA 182

Hi! I got an e-mail from Cineflix. Since it's specifically about PSA 182 I posted the contents to Talk:PSA_Flight_182#PSA_182_and_non-essential_conversation but linked it from the aircrash noticeboard and the RS noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, the US OMB described Palm Beach County as a part of the Miami metropolitan area. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category is Miami(Miami-Dade County), Fort Lauderdale(Broward) and Pompano Beach(Broward). None of those are Palm Beach county so this is not a subcategory of it. Palm Beach County isn't Broward or Miami-Dade.
Read the file[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-02.pdf}, its Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area. None of which are Palm Beach County....William 01:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name reflects the three most important cities, yes, but the OMB itself defines the metro area as also including Palm Beach, even though none of the three main cities are in Palm Beach. But page 41 of the document from the post above states "Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Principal Cities: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, West Palm Beach, Miami Beach, Kendall, Boca Raton, Deerfield Beach, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, Homestead" - Three of those cities (West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and Delray Beach) are in Palm Beach County. There are three metropolitan divisions, or divisions of the metropolitan statistical area, with each being one county. In light of what I presented, I would like to restore the Miami category at the Palm Beach people category. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Speed (unseen edits?)

Greetings. Apologies in advance if this is redundant (never exactly figured out just who's alerted to what actions on WP). Long story short, I posted a pretty massive re-edit on JS a couple of days ago which, it certainly seems, was unseen by all but one - alas, the ubiquitous Author-Author (i.e. the AfD nominator), who, typically, rather than comment on any of the new material (heavily documented and, whether sufficient or not, clearly relevant to notability), chose to 'critique' a completely irrelevant transitional sentence already present in the original. And now the article is deleted. Fortunately (due to my increasingly sputtering Mac), during each edit, I tend to save my work to email numerous times, so it was easy enough to recreate my latest draft on my talk page, which is what I've done. It's parked there right now, and I'd deeply appreciate u giving it a look; don't know if it would change your opinion or the general outcome, but it is a seriously different document than that on which u & others voted a few days back. I'd certainly value your feedback. DavidESpeed (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airport disaster sections

About that it's common for these sections to cover not only accidents and incidents occurring at the airport, but also accidents and incidents involving flights going to and from the airport. I'm not sure if it's been discussed but if you want to restrict the sections to only the former we could hold a discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aronberg

Good afternoon,

Please discontinue your mass edits to the page Dave Aronberg. Your edits of Aronberg's page consistently replace updated information with outdated information (campaign status, website, etc). They also delete pertinent, valuable information for individuals seeking to learn more about Aronberg. See the talk page there for further discussion.

If you feel that the article does not meet NPOV standards, then you are free and encouraged to edit specific objectionable language; however, it is inappropriate to delete entire sections detailing legal and political experience. If you continue to do so, your page will be reported for long-term vandalism to wikipedia and blocked from further edits.

Thank you.

/Edit/ As an afterthought, I've proactively rewritten sections of Aronberg's page to be more clearly neutral. I would appreciate suggestions to the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.43.204 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP with no edit history is telling me not to revert an article with WP:NPOV, WP:RS(Namely the use of Aronberg's website and press releases from the same), and assorted other issues shouldn't have them reverted. The article reads like a press release. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Clean the article up....William 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my phone doing edits and didn't re-log in. I'm the same person who has been reverting your edits and will continue to do so if you continue to make mass edits. The article does NOT read like a press release.

There's a natural line to walk between neutrally discussing positive accomplishments and framing issues that are neutral as positive. Aronberg does good work; it deserves credit on his page.

I understand why some of the language doesn't seem neutral; I'm going through section by section to edit the sentence-or-two that violate NPOV.

As far as source credibility goes, that doesn't justify deleting the whole page; it justifies editing those sources out. That said, his website is credible insofar as the alternative is no source at all - the issues lack otherwise coverage. Citing the website is avoided unless it is impossible not to. This is consisten with norms for other local politician articles. Additionally, Aronberg's articles are cited for facts (such as dates of employ) which are broadly checkable but not broadly reported on.

If you have issues with a specific section, edit that and we'll discuss. If you mass revert one more time, your page WILL be reported.

Regards, cchessman

What do you think of the edits I made here[38] and here[39] which Chessman reverted? Another thing, there was controversy in the months leading up to Aronberg's election. Here is one article for example[40]. I think it warrants mentioning. Please give me your opinions on my trimmed down mention plus the Marx controversy....William 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did great work on the article. The Marx issue I'm kind of ambivalent too but leaning to putting it in. It would take work so that the section maintains a NPOV. As you can see, I'm not rushing into anything due to my mixed feelings.
  • It will be interesting to see if Cchessman reacts or doesn't react to all the edits done to the article. The current version of the article bears a resemblance to one he once reverted. Based on his edit history, his account could be taken for a single purpose one. He may never edit here again. Cchessman could also revert all the edits again. If that happens, I think we would have a clear case of WP:Ownership. Then you or I will have to alert an administrator. For the meantime, I have the Aronberg article on my watchlist. Honestly, I suspect Cchessman won't be bothering with the article again....William 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dean Chance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wooster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the inclusion of Vieques Air Link Flight 901A on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft: My understanding is that this accident does not meet the article inclusion criteria. The criteria require that included aircraft have "minimum passenger seating capacity of 10 seats (8 passenger seats minimum prior to 1940)." The aircraft involved in Vieques Air Link Flight 901A had passenger capacity of up to 9 passengers, and only 9 persons on board at the time of the accident.

Please let me know if you have other objections to its removal. I've left it in place for now. I am planning to remove it again sometime after 24 hours from now if possible. Thanks. oh my yes (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked[41] editor/administrator MilborneOne for an opinion. Milborne does alot of work on aviation related articles including those about crashes. Whatever he says, will decide it. You might be right. Is this ok with you?...William 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. oh my yes (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO says nothing about never using external links to annotate internal wikilinks in the "see also" section, nor can I imagine a strong reason for never doing so. You're also doing far more than removing just the external link by removing the citation template entirely, and in a couple instances you even removed the wikilink too. Please instead propose this change, and your reasons for it (hopefully more than "SEEALSO says so") at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this was a good edit: we definitely should not repeat wikilinks in the see also section that are already in the body of the article. So please keep up that work. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WilliamJE/Archive_4&oldid=1187460672"