User talk:WilliamJE/Archive 16

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for the future: Don't accuse anyone of lying. It's usually pretty much impossible to prove intent, and it's probably uncivil and an AGF violation to boot. If you have evidence someone just said something untrue or without foundation, you can say that. It's not uncivil. And it usually makes it easier to find agreement and get back to improving the encyclopedia.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: I didn't accuse Nyttend of lying. I accused Nyttend of threatening to lie in order to get me blocked. Read the differential Nyttend even supplied.

Here are links to the relevant exchanges by Nyttend[1] and Orlady[2] and then Nyttend's threat at the very top of[3] to get me blocked for repeat harassment of him when in the words of the blocking admin and himself said it wasn't harassment and he backed her at the time.

Do you know that Nyttend in his pursuit of me has gone to an Administrator's Wikipedia Commons[4] talk page (Until this week when I uploaded a photo I've never edited at Commons) and used his backup account[5] to contact an administrator. Use of backup accounts are acceptable, but Nyttend edited from his main account one minute after using his Nyttend account. WP:Scrutiny applies, read the one and only reason Nyttend says[6] he'll use the backup for and compare it to his behavior, and I addressed this Acroterion at the time only to get rebuffed. Sphilbrick's reply[7] to Nyttend at Commons is quite interesting. He rebuffs Nyttend, pretty much saying he is irrational, and that rather than a block I should be getting a Barnstar. If you defend Nyttend's use of his backup, it is hard to defend a charge of forum shopping against him because he went to Acroterion for the very same reasons Sphilbrick had already dismissed.

Do you know I once tried to work with him on a article only to get rebuffed. Read this and this[8]

He's called me a stalker at least once[9] in a edit summary.

Nyttend has poked before. The original dispute that led to me being blocked which was overturned by Sphilbrick and which nobody defended the reasoning for, occurred Nyttend revived the topic after it had laid dormant for over a day. I'll supply the differentials if you really want to see it.

Note I supply differentials all the time. Been to ANI before, from both sides of a dispute.

Yesterday I saw both my physician about my malignant melanoma( I had a recurrence 6 months ago after 20 years of being clean. My talk page archives[10] and user page have some mention of my melanoma history) and to see a person in regards to an offer I am being made for the rights to one of my ebooks I've written. Good stuff, not so good stuff, and I have things to do today too starting around 30 minutes from now that will keep me busy till afternoon Florida time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

~~Sorry, you're absolutely right - I accidentally misrepresented what you accused him of.~~ I apologize for ~~the mistake and~~ bringing up Nyttend on your talk page.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

—Cryptic 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bloody joking? @Sphilbrick:, @Acroterion:, @MilborneOne:. I undid a improper close at WP:DRV and a administrator blocks me without warning and no explanation either. Where's the edit summaries?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You frivolously and repeatedly reverted a discussion closure, closed by a user with whom you'd previously been in conflict. What were you expecting? —Cryptic 12:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:DRV that reads- "A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. WP:NADC reads 'No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus. Those aren't frivolous. That's wikipedia policy.

I can not recall ever encountering this administrator before today.

Your block is totally wrong on various grounds. Be prepared to defend yourself at ANI as soon as it is removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Long-standing editor WilliamJE made two reverts and you blocked him without so much as a warning? Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TRM. No edit summaries either and reverting something that both violates WP:NADC and WP:DRV. Read my edit summary....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 19 - the only other ones by this user to DRV, so far as I'm aware - are also relevant. —Cryptic 12:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not my only ever edits to DRV. Doesn't make any difference if they were. You haven't made any case for blocking me except that you don't like my opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you haven't made any case for reverting User:S Marshall's closure besides that you don't like his opinion. Anyone even minimally familiar with DRV would know that closures by experienced non-administrators are not unusual, and had you opened a discussion on WT:DRV as was suggested to you on the Sep 19 page instead of (to all appearances) waiting for his next close to pounce on and revert, you would have been politely told the same.

That said, I'll readily admit that I have no knowledge of your history with S Marshall, besides what's on the Sep 19 log; and I have no objection to an unblock, so long as you'll agree to stop reverting that entirely-proper close. —Cryptic 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a totally wrong closure on two points. Which I made in my edit summaries. Your lack of edit summaries in your reverts is appalling as is you lack of knowledge of WP:NADC which reads No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus.' A non-administrator had no business doing a closure here. See you at ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Cryptic blocks me without warning and without even a edit summary for reverting a violation of wikipedia policy. Never encountered him before and he has supplied zero proof of any disruptive behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After Cryptic's comment above, I have unblocked. WilliamJE, if you wish to contest the close on policy grounds after being reverted, I suggest you bring it up at an appropriate forum for discussion/clarification. And a reminder to all that a block is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort - talking should be the first move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is Cryptic being stripped of his administrator powers because this block is absolute bullshit. Cryptic could have just closed the DRV as a uninvolved administrator rather than restoring a close that is improper on three grounds. That's if they concurred with the ruling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't inflame things, please just leave it with me and we'll get it resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William:

Please take the advice of Boing! said Zebedee
It would have been nice if you had included a link to the incident in question. Obviously, I can play detective and figure it out, but when you are asking someone to help, it is courteous to make it easy for them to help.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to you, I don't need to drop the matter. This bullshit block is now on my permanent record at Wikipedia and I have said to you at least one time before how much I dislike that. I won't drop the matter. Cryptic needs to be put in their place. They obviously run WP their way, bad block, ignoring the clear definitions of both DRV and NADC, why should they be allowed to to do this again?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not your own best advocate on occasions like this, and you may place more emphasis on your block log than is warranted. That said, based on a very short look (I'm eating lunch) I think your actions were ill-advised and so were Cryptic's. I'll look at in more detail when I have a little time available. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William, no one said you should just "drop the matter". For the record, you wanted me involved, but didn't have the couresy to link to the incident in question. I'm not a DRV regular, so didn't know about this incident. I have now found it by looking at ANI, but you aren't starting off on the right foot by requesting involvement without a link, and then misconstruing advice given to you. In my option "drop the matter" measn say nothing about this ever again, while the advice given was "please just leave it with me and we'll get it resolved". In other words, there are people interested in helping you, but you have to give busy people some time to check out the incident, especially when you don;t provide links.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I'd just let it go. It's abundantly apparent to me that the block was a poor one, and if nothing else, just cracking on with improving Wikipedia will make you feel better and expose the block for the absurd action that it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはWilliamJEたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

WilliamJE,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

January 2020

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Hohum ^@) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:BRD. Also, for the third time: WP:NOTABILITY and everything else you have referenced is for notability requirements for making a whole article on a subject, not just *mentioning* it in an existing article. Please revert your change and take it to the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to any of this? Put these names in any community article they will get removed on that basis alone. WHat is the basis of their notability? Just that they are related to somebody famous. They doesn't make THEM notable. If they had an article on only that basis, it would be deleted per NOTINHERITED. You have to prove their notability. There is none at the present....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kobe Bryant

Hi WilliamJE, I was considering removing the names of non notable persons from the article and would like your thoughts on this. - Samf4u (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samf4u: I don't think non notable names should be in aviation accident articles. Personally I have stayed away from Kobe Bryant stuff. Here's my reasoning-
- 1- That article is going to be a magnet for both experienced and inexperienced editors for some time. People aren't going to like the consensus for not naming people in aviation accident articles. So some drama (I just got dragged to ANI[11] over Galaxy Airlines Flight 203) is going to result. I think it is best to let things settle down before trying to take the names out.
- 2-The article is Death of Kobe Bryant at the moment. If it gets renamed to something reflecting its clearly being a aviation accident article, then I think the time would be better for taking the names out. BTW I think the article should be renamed.
There is some other point that I was going to make but it is slipping my mind at the moment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, While removing the names is the right thing to do and we have a consensus to do so, I think it would ignite a firestorm of arguing at this time. Agree with name change and just posted on the articles talk page. Also, I did follow that ridiculous thread at ANI, the original poster is really a piece of work. Thanks much! - Samf4u (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

I didn't mean to do this. Interstellarity (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

I see at the top of this page that you say you know your sig is confusing. If you know it is confusing, you should change it, it also is going aginst WP:SIGLEN and makes it hard to see who is talking. I had to look at the page history to see who made the edit as it looked to be unsigned. You can set somthing up so that way only YOU will see the "the complaint department" part. How to do it is shown at WP:SIGLEN as well. You liking it is not a resaon to have a sig that is highly confusing. Thank You. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been my signature a long time. Please follow my directions to the complaint department....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE,... the roof link led here, so I am in the right place. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, im trying to resolve this without going to the drama boards. and that commet you made would be consider rude as well. "I like it" and "his has been my signature a long time" are dumb reasons, it took me a good five minuts to find out that it was you who filled something to ANI about Xray. because it looked like you only did the timestamp. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the drama boards if you want. Somebody is sure to tell you to stop wasting their time. End of subject....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William, I don't want this (please read it) to happen to you. More and more editors are criticizing your signature. If that results in a community consensus (as in the above case), I hope that you will graciously implement a change. starship .paint (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a proposal has been opened reagarding your sig

It can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=941456417 perm link for archival reasons LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William, you can see where this is going. We can avert that disaster, together:

...William (is the complaint department really on the roof?)
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

You can pick a favourite colour if you don't like that green above. Let's get you out of this hole. Not all of us want to lynch you, otherwise they wouldn't have provided suggestions like the above. starship .paint (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William. You and I have never interacted directly, but we have commented at the same discussions once or twice, and I have to confess that I have found your signature confusing - far more so than any of the other ones mentioned in the AN thread - because, as Ivanvector noted, it simply doesn't look like a sig. There is a clear consensus at AN that you should change it to something more obviously resembling a signature, or be blocked. I don't think blocking you would benefit the project; I also don't think that ignoring the concerns of numerous other editors benefits the project. The easiest way out of the woods seems to me that you should just change it, so that it's obviously a sig. STARSHIP has presented some pretty cool options above - why not just pick one of them and walk away from this? GirthSummit _(blether) 02:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just normalize your damned signature and let's get on with life. This is idiotic. Don't let Team Bozo kneecap you. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to add my voice to those above who are imploring you to change your signature. I'm honestly surprised by the fact that so many others find it confusing, but apparently they do and this isn't a hill worth dying on. If it makes you feel any better, I doubt that most of those commenting at AN have it in for you personally. Lepricavark (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liking your own signature and having it for a long time are damn solid reasons to want to keep it. Don't let the chorus convince you you're digging your grave by trying to continue normally. It may be a valid problem, but it's their valid problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with liking your signature, but editors should remember the primary purpose for signatures is to aide collaboration. If it gets in the way of that it becomes a problem, not just for everyone on Wikipedia, including of course the editor causing the problem. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be blockable in and of itself. But editors who keep keep doing stuff which they are aware is harming collaboration, and which they can easily resolve, are eventually going to find themselves blocked. I personally thhink the signature was dumb but not confusing, but it's clear other editors genuinely find it confusing. I didn't offer much comment on the issue on the AN since it didn't seem to be the right place as I was unconvinced the signature was a big enough a problem for a block in and of itself. But unlike others, I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting (not hoping!) that an editor who is harmful to collaboration is eventually blocked. The primary reason is not because of lynch mobs, or people carrying a grudge, but all to do with the fact that ultimately we are here to work together. And so editors who keep doing stuff which causes problems for that when they can easily not do so, are eventually going to be seen as a net negative. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Today I had to defend myself[12] from an editor who lied(My user page doesn't link to my books or my business and never has. First mention of any published book is April 2014. You can check) at ANI[13] about my USER page and compared me[14] to people who commit felonies. The same editor says 'Wikipedia's image hosting,[15] are abused as a personal family photo album'. One photo of myself, which is used at Gerald Barbarito is somehow abuse. What's should the penalty be for lying and being irrational at ANI? Maybe @Smuckola: can opine on it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you that the userpage criticisms will amount to nothing as anyone can see that they are inaccurate. I agree that the DUI remark was very inappropriate, but it really would help if you would take a deep breath and keep your cool. I realize that you've been under an unpleasant amount of scrutiny of late, but responding angrily only gives more ammunition to your critics. (Also, I think you'll find that the Team Bozo remark referenced below came from Carrite, who regrettably is not an admin). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'anyone can see that they are inaccurate' Why then did 4 editors (Nil Einne, Sharab, Xray, and Nick at least) respond to the thread without shooting down the lie? I had to defend myself because nobody else was....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, FYI, Nick said he is waiting for your responce to others before commenting, and its not their job to defend you, thats your job, but I did so because I felt it was the right thing. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners I replied[16] to Nil Einne yesterday which was meant for Nick or anyone else there. BTW you don't have to ping me at MY talk page. I get email alerts, plus the 'new messages' alert at the top of the WP screen. If you don't desire to be pinged by me also if I reply to you here, I will honor your request. It looks like you're watching my page anyway. Be careful you don't go blind because of it, LOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its just Reply link doing it, I prefer being pinged as I don't watch userpages onwiki in cases like this. I have another external tool I use to get pings on IRC whenever a page gets edited. or a user makes an edit. thats not needed in this case. If someone is involved in a discussion. I keep their contrbs open in a tab and reload it every so often so I can see if they responded. I would advise that you tell Nick that it was intended for him as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners You know I feel like writing to @Nick: in regards to something he could have done last Saturday after my speedy deletion nomination, but it is frankly going to take time. Which I rather spend time on other things the rest of today. Television watching, work on my next ebook, making dinner for me and my wife, and bingo tonight which means I won't be doing anything online from about 6:30 to 9:30 pm my time (It is almost 3 pm here now. Bingo starts at 715 but you must be there by 7). Which has been my normal routine for most Mondays since last October. I might start composing it today but don't expect it up before tomorrow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at ANI but not in the way above. Smuckola is a liar, and Tivvix is not much better. No editor here should have to take Smuckola's personal attacks or statements that are totally untrue. The things he said about my user page are wrong wrong wrong and uncalled for. Maybe I'll open a thread on his behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a very slim chance that any action would be taken against Smuckola and an ANI thread would likely do more harm than good. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but at this point it's best to just let it all blow over. I agree that the statements were wrong and uncalled for, and I think they've been so thoroughly debunked that you shouldn't need to worry about anyone believing what was said about your userpage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. 'It reads in part= An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.' That's a arbcom ruling BTW. Smuckola violated it without question. He provided no evidence, and there isn't any. Why doesn't Smuckola face a block? He hasn't withdrawn the statements and they have had ample opportunity to do so....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong; I'm done denying that Smuckola violated policy. It's just that most policy violations don't result in sanctions, especially now that a few days have passed since the remarks were made. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: How about you going over to Smuckola's talk page and ask if they are going to reply to their being a rude liar? They are back editing again, so it is obvious they won't reply for the shit they committed this morning. I've pinged them at least twice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and LakesideMiners rebutted Smuckola's remarks at ANI. If they don't reply with some kind of rebuttal, I think you should interpret that as a tacit concession that they were incorrect. Forcing the issue seems unwise, as does calling them a 'rude liar'. I've already been accused of bludgeoning for my participation in the thread, so I'd like to hold off for a little bit anyway. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LepricavarkIt acauly took me a bit to even find what Smuck was even talking about. Thats how little William even talks about the books! The DUI comment was not a good analogy, they would get the same point across without even needing to use an analogy. If I had found this, insted of filling an ANI report, I would have just given William a trout. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I mentioned having a book published was here[17] in April 2014. Note at the time my page read 'This user page is brought to you by Chaos, a Delaware Corporation and equal opportunity employer'. My publishing company wasn't formed at the time, that was an attempt (Go to this webpage[18] to see where it emanates from) at humor. Even with a wikilink to humour, some editor a few years ago I don't recall who or when, didn't get the joke. My User page has never had any links to my company, author page (It isn't WilliamJE or anyone named William or Bill) at Amazon, or any of my stories. I have never linked to any of that anywhere at WP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's lies and other crap comes just days after another group of editors (Called Team Bozo by ~~administrator~~ long-time editor here[19]) tried to get me blocked for absolutely no violation of WP policy. That's a great example of people together around here, isn't it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

As you dont seem to be redading the thread anymore, I think it is right to let you know has now been closed by User:Floquenbeam. You will be happy to know that you will not be blocked but I would advise you to read the closing comment. I hope this drama is all finaly over. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, got pulled away by real life for a few minutes) I've closed the AN thread. That couldn't have been fun. However, if you wade through all the bad feelings and ulterior motives, there are still a whole lot of people who are not your "enemies" who are genuinely bothered by your signature. Please consider following Starship.paint's advice; any of those minor changes would be all that's needed to make 90% of people's concerns go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Floquenbeam: There was no need for you to say sorry. Your ping was sufficient for telling me the thread was closed.
- @DBigXray: and @SharabSalam: Under no circumstances are either of you to ping me again or post to this talk page. It will be considered harassment if you do. That specifically includes this very thread also.
- That discussion was retaliation for my taking Xray to ANI[20] over their harassment of two editors.
- I've stood up for other editors around here who I felt were wrongly treated. @Niteshift36: and @Joefromrandb:. That's a practice I am not going to stop doing. That would be rewarding Xray and Sharab.
- Also I am not changing my signature to satisfy a lynch mob or as @Carrite: termed them 'Team Bozo'. It would be rewarding the wrong people. An indefinite block for my signature. If it wasn't retaliation, there are some sick minds (And sycophants out there to unthinkingly follow them) out there because what else can you call that form of disproportionate justice thinking. Remember the saying- The penalty should suit the crime? What crime? My signature isn't against any WP policy.

That's all folks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Damned small molehill to choose to die on. Talk about rewarding the wrong people...~~ Carrite (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Oops, my bad, hopefully. -tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Carrite ? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Carrite may have mistakenly thought the thread at WP:AN was still open....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought you self-immolated rather than dusting the unconventional talk page link from your sig. Glad you did not. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody self-immolates over something this minor, that's just positive spin from the flamethrower crowd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William, I am disappointed on your decision. Yet, what’s important for you is not what I feel, but that this will be used against you in the future. I’m sure your stubbornness and hostility will come back to bite you again, and on these points, it will most likely be beyond my ability to help. These points have already been raised at WP:AN. I can only hope you avoid conflicts, because every conflict is a step closer to sanctions. On the other hand, if you perform a simple bolding, to satisfy neutral editors (say like Girth Summit), now, we have positive evidence of your ability to change. I'd say that’s a win-win for you, you help yourself, you help neutral editors, and why care about the ‘bad guys’? Just ignore them. starship .paint (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, I agree with this 100%, I do not want to see this to come back to bite him, and William, I greatly apologize for how I was acting, I could have remained more calm during this whole thing while still getting across the same point, I hope you accept my apology.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the conversation, but as a neutral bystander, I agree, at least bold the extras in your signature, to make it stand out as a signature instead of a sentence. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw the AN discussion just now. It was stoopid. Anyways, I want you to know that I always found your signature humorous. Never found it distracting or anything. But sometimes, it can be difficult to spot it as a signature. I hope you dont get discouraged by the AN thread. I also hope you stay active on the project for a very very long time. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I brought up several people, I forgot to mention ⌚️ = Trillfendi. ミラ P 15:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munich air disaster

I don't see any reason why this needs to be a project-wide thing. There may be a consensus for those few articles you mentioned, but the full passenger manifest of the Munich air disaster is short enough and reported widely enough to be worth including in the article. Considering the info has remained in situ since the article was practically brand new, please don't remove it again until we've had a chance to discuss it properly. – Pee Jay 12:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the consensus of the WikiProject. Take your concerns here[21]. I already opened a thread....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ArbCom

William, I see that you are considering taking the matter to ArbCom. Based on my prior observations, I'm fairly confident in saying that there is a 0% chance that ArbCom would do anything to Smuckola. ArbCom is not intended to deal with first offenses, so unless you can show a pattern of similar behavior, your case request will be declined. Moreover, there is a non-zero chance that you could end up in further hot water for refusing to let the matter drop. I know you're probably getting tired of hearing me say this (and I'm getting tired of saying it), but Smuckola's comments weren't actually that damaging to you. As far as I can tell, not a single editor expressed agreement with their inaccurate statements about your userpage. It was obvious that they were wrong. However, by making a big deal out of it, you've attracted negative attention to yourself, and that's something you particularly don't need right on the heels of the signature brouhaha. Smuckola has moved on and you've really got to let it go. If they attack you again in the future, let me know and I'll do my best to see that the situation is dealt with. Otherwise, this can all be forgotten. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 710

So...because Judge John A. Sbarbaro who was "a prominent Chicago judge. His extensive law career included roles as Assistant State's Attorney, Municipal Court Judge, Criminal Court Judge, and Superior Court of Cook County Judge. At one point he also ran operations for the BAA Chicago Stags franchise." in addition to his ties with the Chicago underworld during the Capone era is not deemed worthy of mention on this article because he doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. Really. You sound like a pretty heavy-handed hall monitor there, WillamJE.

I'll include this on the talk page so people looking for information may, just might mind you, stumble on to it on the talk page.RRskaReb talk 15:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RRskaReb: First, naming aviation accident victims in articles has been discussed multiple times in recent months-

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question

And how about a little over a month ago- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

And how about this week- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

The consensus is that unless they have a WP article, we don't name survivors or deceased from a plane crash with the exception of the cockpit crew.

Secondly, Sbarbaro is a local judge and official. Read WP:JUDGE and WP:NPOL. Most such people aren't WP notable.

Thirdly, your source for the judge's notability is Find a Grave. FAG (or paid obituaries) fails WP:RS/P. Experienced WP editors know that.

Please read....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Pretty sure the spirit of that rule is if I typed something like, "Among the victims was Shriley Baumgartner, 35, of Poughkeepsie, New York, homemaker" that would be considered extraneous information and I agree with that. Also, I don't remember what the original source I posted was. What I included in my response to this was merely something I picked up on the fly. OK. So I'll upload a Wikipedia bio on the judge and then put him back in the notable victims section. Would that be acceptable to you?

Looking around we have: The People v. Sbarbaro, 55 N.E.2d 172 (Ill. 1944) "In this cause twelve separate cases, all bearing the same title, have been consolidated in this court. They are all entitled The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. George F. Barrett, Attorney General, vs. John A. Sbarbaro, Judge of the Superior Court of Cook County and Ex-Officio Judge of the Criminal Court of Cook County, and the Criminal Court of Cook County."^[1]

Here we have an article written by the judge in the University of Chicago Law Review on marriage ^[2]

Here in Life magazine he wrote a letter to the editor and mentioned his many years as a judge in Cook County ^[3]

His involvement as "undertaker to the mob" in Chicago here ^[4]

Here is his involvement as a prosecutor against Leopold and Loeb ^[5]

I could go on. What is it about "notable" that you do not understand? Since when would a judge of the superior court in Cook County, Illinois not considered to be "notable"? Really wonder what your thinking is on that. I guess Los Angeles County and Manhattan don't make the cut, either. I believe a little common sense and a reasonable amount of latitude in articles here would make Wikipedia better. RRskaReb talk 17:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You came here with an attitude, calling me a hall monitor. Then you say 'What is it about "notable" that you do not understand?" I cited consensus and WP policy on reliable sources. Maybe I will report you to ANI for violating WP:NPA. Don't edit this talk page again or it will considered harassment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, I've read through the above, as requested. I agree that this approach was somewhat problematic, but you have asked them not to post here again and so far they've complied with your request. I don't think this approaches anything requiring an ANI thread yet - is there anything further you think needs to happen? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1942 disestablishments in Iowa

A tag has been placed on Category:1942 disestablishments in Iowa 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!} 03:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1982 disestablishments in Virginia

A tag has been placed on Category:1982 disestablishments in Virginia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Player

Hi. You'll likely notice it anyway, but I've redone my previous edit and removed the rogue citation (which I should have done originally) as the (primary) source is an unreliable one. His Sunshine Tour profile page, while also inaccurate, does at least confirm some of these (e.g. skins games) as being non-tour events. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golfers with most Sunshine Tour wins we are unable to verify the number of Sunshine Tour wins, especially for those playing in earlier eras. In addition, the tour is generally recognised as starting at the beginning of the 1970s which would preclude a large number of Player's wins. Regards. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: My problem with your edit was you added something to a sentence with an Inline citation on it and the IC doesn't confirm what you had added. That's one of my pet peeves[22] around here. I'm fine with your fix. In fact the use of Gary Player's own website as a source for his wins was improper and it was correct to remove it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discord

Hi there! I'm sorry if my Discord messages came off as spam, we just need to see if there is interest in order to create a channel. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:TPNO. Talk pages aren't discusssion forums. Your posts aren't about WP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's the Wikipedia Discord channel....HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will report it to an administrator. @Acroterion:. Are edits like this[23] acceptable? It is not a post related to the WP and any of the articles it covers....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 255

You did not have to do an entire revert because of other edits I made but did not mention. You could have just removed the parts you exclaimed in your edit summary. Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're editing accident articles, you should know the consensus about Mayday[24]. To remove them, takes work. You shouldn't have put the stuff in the article to start with....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I and another user now both disagree with your stance regarding the subject that was recently listed there (diff, diff). Please stop censoring the page per your personal preference. Your ongoing WP:OWNERSHIP actions on the page is disrputive.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further - that category, with its intended use, would be very useful to track federal-level subjects that aren't particularly relevant to one state. The focus of the article is clearly on service in the federal armed forces. I shouldn't have to watchlist 50 state pages, whose local topics I don't care about (I mostly only edit California topics), to keep an eye on the federal level stuff, which I do care about. Your interpretation of the rules is not the only interpretation that matters. I'm not going to violate 3RR, so I'm done reverting. CJK09 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're both ignoring the very fact, that North America wrote the page guidelines.[25]. That was his proposal and the guidelines are written by him. See you At ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines aren't iron-bound. Ignoring all rules is one of the five pillars. I wasn't around for the discussion, but I have to imagine that the guidelines were intended to keep the endless non-notable articles about local "celebrities", railroad sidings, ice cream shops, etc, out of the national category. Rules should be followed by the spirit, not the letter, and you are singlehandedly making that AfD category nearly useless.

If you want to take this to ANI, sure, go ahead. CJK09 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2020 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks from certain areas of the encyclopedia for 3RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

El_C 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit. NA is violating his own rules[26].NA wrote the guidelines word for word....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is puzzling is that you allowed yourself to violate a bright line rule. That you still exhibit no introspection about that is unfortunate. El_C 18:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

See here. CJK09 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospital for Chrildren Open

Hi, I see you keep changing my edits on Jonathan Byrds page. Forgive me, but I don't understand your reasoning for changing it as I don't know how sponsorship has anything to do with the tournament title being displayed over two lines, which makes it look neater as it is a long title. Jimmymci234 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP Golf's talk page here[27]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1942 disestablishments in Iowa

A tag has been placed on Category:1942 disestablishments in Iowa 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!} 15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my antics

I am sorry you had to be target of my abuse. I did get angry over you telling me what to do despite being an European (at least in origin) and did see the removal of survivors as unnecessary and even censorship. But I realise now that's not how the things here work. I am unreservedly sorry for the abusive language and flurry of anger directed at all editors including you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Aviation accidents and incidents in 1998

Hello, I just want to let you know that you did not state a reason for reverting this edit here. In the future. it would be helpful if you used the summary to state why you are reverting someone's edit. Note: that edit was not vandalism. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, it is a draft....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense now. I will add the actual article to the template itself, and not the draft. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a Consensus not to have this Stuff in Articles."

Hi, WilliamJE. I notice that you proposed two consensuses in the past, and they both passed. Seeing your edit summaries, these are the two consensuses:

Consensus #1: Do not list non-notable people on an aircraft accident unless they are cockpit crew.

Consensus #2: I do not know the name of this consensus, but adding material such as "Saudia Flight 163 is currently the worst aviation disaster not related to a crash" is not allowed due to a consensus that prohibits that.

Would you please provide the links to the two consensuses? Thank you. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303/Archive_1#Victim_notability and

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force/Archive_6#Willy_waving

Next time, try looking around first....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Used in the incident" was the problem

Hello you left a message on my talk page explaining the difference between aircraft accident and incident. However that wasn't the problem I had with an edit of a person. The issue arised from him saying the aircraft was "used in the incident". The wording can seem suggestive as someone was deliberately utilising it. Regardless, I do accept that I misunderstood the term "incident" here as I didn't know it refers to incidents without casualties in aviation terms. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1995 disestablishments in Rhode Island

A tag has been placed on Category:1995 disestablishments in Rhode Island 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!} 15:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529

So for this article, I did try to place the citations where I though it was appropriate. I just wanted to give the article inline citations so references could be more clear. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsports during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Marinaro

Done, thanks. Giant Snowman 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Gold

Thank you for restoring the information. I'm sure you'll remove this, but I want it in your talk page history for future reference. You have several blocks for edit warring and combative editing. I can now see why. I looked through some of your edit history (and I'll continue to look). Some of your edits are constructive, but a serious issue is whether those good edits outweigh your combative attitude on Wikipedia. At this point I'm not sure, but I'll keep an eye on it. Sundayclose (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1802 U.S. gubernatorial elections

I should appreciate it if you might restore the Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year to the page 1802 United States gubernatorial elections, or else let me restore it without reverting it. You will note every other page on this site of the form "XXXX United States gubernatorial elections" (XXXX running from 1800 to 2022) is a member of that category, so it belongs there for completeness. Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CATEGORIZATION. It is not proper to put an article in both its parent and its subcategory. 'Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous).

Plus WP:SEEALSO says 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.' You should learn to do articles properly before complaining to the person who cleans up your mess....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn a bit of civilised behaviour. You are not "clearing up my mess". You are making the pages you alter an exception to the rule, which is that every page of the form "XXXX U.S. gubernatorial elections" is a member of that category. Marplesmustgo (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am cleaning up messes. GoldRingChip raised the very same issue on your talk page hours before I did these fixes. You called me arrogant. Read Categorization and See Also. You apparently haven't....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than engage in any reasonable discussion, you have chosen to edit war and revert my reasonable edits. You refer me to "ANI", whatever that is, because you expect the casual Wikipedia editor to know what that is. You either refer this to an even-handed arbitrator, or else I will just continue to revert your edits. You then have the affrontery to say "You called me arrogant. Read Categorization and See Also. You apparently haven't" and apparently you haven't the intelligence to see the massive arrogance in the final sentence. You also do not see the arrogance in you refusing to alter your signature, a drama played out above. You are in the wrong, I am in the right, either pack it in or report this conflict to a higher authority. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Crash Investigation Special Report

Hello sir! Why you have reversed my Edition Episodes have been announced it's not vandalism Julian Aristiqui (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus not to add episodes to this page till they air....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Michigan

You wrote that consensus is that being a Miss Michigan is not notable enough to be listed on a city's page. Where is the consensus? Kdammers (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State beauty pageant contest winners aren't considered automatically notable. Per AFDs on Ashlee Baracy, Elizabeth Wertenberger, Nicole Blaszczyk to name a few of dozens....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That friendly wager?

As per User talk:RoySmith#Could you please userfy the deleted Miss Supranational article for me? I mean, you can say "no", but I'd hate it if you merely missed such a hopefully interesting and possibly even fun offer. I see from the section immediately above you are skeptical of the notability of beauty contests/contestants in general, so surely you'd consider it a safe bet? --GRuban (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1999 disestablishments in Georgia (U.S. state)

A tag has been placed on Category:1999 disestablishments in Georgia (U.S. state) 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!} 00:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flight 1702

I looked at the delete conversation. This news video brings up the cause of the accident (and I mean the actual cause; watch before you respond). It does give some info about the fate of the pilots and aircraft. I propose that we can bring back the article, this time using information from the NTSB docket and other media that wasn't used. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960 establishments in Croatia

A tag has been placed on Category:1960 establishments in Croatia 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!} 18:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

In passing through on my wikiwalk by I notice you've been beset by some rather...'passionate' editors over some small nit they want to pick. So a frosty one for you; just because hey; we all have our own quirks, and your quirks seem colorful. Don't let anyone erase your individuality. :3 ♥ Melody ♥ 05:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

[1] ttps://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3417745/the-people-v-sbarbaro/

[2] ttps://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2490&context=uclrev

[3] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=3EkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=%E2%80%8EJudge+John+A.+Sbarbaro&source=bl&ots=H1Z-hIRaGQ&sig=ACfU3U1_ov-mbqpBY0db5N_oxSUQC1ZeUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6x4qVm_fnAhVymuAKHUZHCe8Q6AEwEHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%8EJudge%20John%20A.%20Sbarbaro&f=false

[4] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=MI6MH4u7oCwC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=%E2%80%8EJudge+John+A.+Sbarbaro&source=bl&ots=YVuxwPK45t&sig=ACfU3U1YwhR6-uQlNqFUDFd-BT_fyfm58A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDyvXPnPfnAhUiVd8KHbdxDOY4ChDoATAAegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%8EJudge%20John%20A.%20Sbarbaro&f=false

[5] ttps://law.jrank.org/pages/2852/Leopold-Loeb-Trial-1924.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]