User talk:WilliamJE

CAN'T RETIRE

WilliamJE tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that he couldn't do so…

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

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

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

AfD of Possible Interest

Based on your participation in an AfD for United States presidential election, 2020, you may be interested in this AfD. (This neutrally worded notification is being provided to every editor who registered a !vote in the aforementioned RfC, regardless of direction of their vote, and is therefore done in compliance with WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACKING.) LavaBaron (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lists of people MOS

Could you point me to the consensus regarding the manual of style for lists of people from places? Thanks, Rwalker^talk 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting

You need to stop reverting me. You have no policy backing your edits, which go against Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't go against policy to put the section into alphabetical order, bulletize the list, and add what the person did that they were notable for. Napa, California, Hibbing, Minnesota, Washington Court House, Ohio, Needles, California, Raymond, Maine and Yreka, California are just a few of hundreds or thousands of NP sections I can point out.

Your telling me to bugger off can be used as proof of your committing WP:OWN as can some of your earlier reverts to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend

You may not continue to follow User:Nyttend. Do not look at their contributions. If you see them edit an article on your watchlist, do not go there and make your own edit. Next time you do something like this or this any administrator may block your account. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend is administrator shopping and @Sphilbrick: already said[1] on the matter- If the best argument you can make is that William likes to improve articles where you've contributed, we should be debating which barnstar to award not talking about a block. I repeat- Take me to ANI. Nyttend has a long history that really get him dysopped. He likes to intimidate editors who call him on his bullshit or anyone who criticizes him in any fashion and he's willing to get his cronies (He's working on at least his 4th one in my case) to do his dirty work. How about this threat of his to use what he knows to be a false reason to get me blocked-

"Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me". Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC) referring to a January 31, 2014 block of me done by Orlady.

"No, you weren't harassing Nyttend." Orlady 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment", and it doesn't make any evidence of Orlady lying." Nyttend 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend's visit to your talk page to get me blocked for making edits to location articles also seems to contradict this exchange (Found in Archive 11 of my talk page) between he and Sphilbrick.

I know that William has substantial experience with articles about places and have no problem with him monitoring the edits in these types of articles, even ones he may not have edited before. I don't think that constitutes stalking, although, as noted before, I understand how you could look that way. I also think that, when we accept the admin bit, we also have to accept that we may be under special scrutiny from some editors. That just goes with the territory and is probably good for the project. (I did not look into the sock puppetry issue and do not plan to.)

On a positive note, I have specifically encouraged William to contact me anytime he find something that he considers admin abuse. I am happy to note in his been quite some time since he last contacted me. That's good news. I hope that we can drop this minor incident and just move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very good, but my warning stands: the next incident of stalking will result in a request for sustained sanctions for such, unless it's reasonable that WilliamJE monitors Rorke's Drift, minor train stations, and ANI threads in which I'm a minor participant. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why that doesn't earn Nyttend a block for threatening to disrupt Wikipedia I don't know except that it may be proof administrators are treated differently around here. Please try justifying why he shouldn't be blocked or that his statement of May 3 2015 is in any way true? Coming back to another administrator should be a sure sign of WP:GRUDGE.

I'm here to improve the enyclopedia. Your threatening me with a bullshit block- something that has twice been ruled on to the contrary by another administrator- is definitely a sign of protecting your own and not improving the encyclopedia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing- To threaten an editor with a block for making further edits to Wikipedia articles that would make them to consensus and meet formatting guidelines, and even once threatening[2] a indefinite block for the same type of actions, is a clear sign of an abusive administrator since that admin can point out nothing wrong with the edit and it is acknowledged that the editor who make the edits he was warned for has made over a thousand similar edits all over Wikipedia to either notable people sections or adding establishment categories. I'll take you to ANI if you ever make this threat again except for the claims of stalking/harassment by another administrator who has been shown to make false statements and claims of personal attacks that consensus said weren't personal attacks. Your threat above and your ignoring Sphilbrick's and Nyttend's previous statements are abuse. Don't plead ignorance either to the statements because there is a notice on the top of my page. If you didn't read it and failed to do as directed, you failed your duties....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful with template:Year in US state category

Hi. You want to be careful with {{Year in US state category}} - it generates a ...in the United States category which makes no sense before 1776, there's a separate Thirteen Colonies hierarchy for that. So you can't use a cute template, which means you have to be a bit more old-school for categories such as Category:1770 in Pennsylvania - see here. Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with Lewisthejayhawk

At this point, Lewisthejayhawk getting a ban seems inevitable. Is there anything I can do to help speed up this process? He keeps reverting my edits (manually, without hitting 'undo') and I feel that I would start to dig myself a hole if I keep reverting his edits while this discussion is going on. Also, thanks for the help. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zachlp: I did address what you wrote at ANI. Lewis works alot on articles (College Women's Basketball) that few other editors work. It doesn't excuse his behavior but a ban isn't going to be good for the project. A ban should be a last resort.

Right now I am busy. A Florida Panthers hockey game tonight, 7:30 mass tomorrow morning followed by my going to the gym, plus I am making last edits to my latest ebook I have written and will sell at Amazon. Other than my usual minor tweaks to WP articles, I am not going to have any time for an involved ANI thread or talk page discussions again till late tomorrow morning earliest....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what comes of it, thanks for your efforts on resolving this issue. Enjoy the game! Although I must admit, I'm a Flyers fan. So I hope you don't enjoy it too much. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine

Though if it takes too long to get a response, I will take you to arbitration. Reversions are incredibly rude, and unless they're done for a fantastic reason, I don't take to them well. Earflaps (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You take it to WP:GOLF's talk page. That's where relevant golf article discussions take place, not the portal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't panic.

Please remember, WilliamJE, that reverting another editor three times is cause for banning. I highly recommend you make more of an effort to engage in discussion before blindly reverting, as don't forget, removing sourced, on-topic additions is easily seen as vandalism, irregardless of how right you think you are. Here are the points I will be disagreeing on.

• Constantly committing WP:OVERCITE. In one case like 5 IC from the same source for one paragraph that is all from the same article.
  • This is called minor sloppiness left over from an intense round of editing. Frankly, getting picky about this is like reading your student's thesis that took them five months to write, and then failing them because they used a single word too often, or had a few typos. I will re-add these sections and be pickier with citation, but remember, any wiki gnome can fix this. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Changing what Dave Hill said in his book. Do you have a copy of Teed Off? I do. The word innocence is not used.
  • I do believe we're allowed to paraphrase. All I did was re-word your own sloppy paragraph, I didn't "change" what he said by adding a specific quote.
• Sandra Palmer was never suspended but you created a section header saying just that.
  • Oh goodness, you're right, it was "probation" for a year, not suspension. Really, you could have changed the name of the subsection instead of removing an entire sourced, relevant, and very well-written section. You baffle me.
• Your removals in the aftermath section
  • The aftermath section was filled with random bio facts that were not deleted, but simply moved to her biography, where they belong. I also added a lovely little summary of her 'recent' awards - or did you not notice that the 'aftermath' section was four years old? It was going on about her writing an article about sexuality in LPGA propaganda, how is this related to the ongoing cheating case? It also went on about how she didn't qualify for the hall of fame. If you'd read the recent info I'd added, it makes all that bla bla about not qualifying moot, because she was given the award in 2014. Anyways, this is the final time I try and pander to your weird reversions before I take you arbitration over it. One little thing you don't like in a large bold addition is not reason to revert 'all' of it. It is, in fact, a bit ridiculous. Earflaps (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

btw, I'm not quite sure why you're so adamant about keeping all this Bob Toski stuff on the page, though I don't care enough on that point to fight much. I just feel qoutes from people more involved in the whole thing, like lawyers and committee members, would add more and be more relevant than a coach who admitted he'd never seen anything. As far as making that quote that blatantly insinuates he thinks Blalock is insane, I don't remember finding any other evidence in all the articles you found that he was involved in the legal fracas in any way. But again, whatever. I think actually building the Bob Toskii#Golf scandal page into something might be a more productive use of your interest in his narrative. The Toski page is measly as is, and doesn't mention these things at all. Earflaps (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The re-writing of any golf article here at Wikipedia doesn't bother me except when one of two things occur-

1- Factual mistakes are inserted into articles.

2- Reliably sourced content is taken out of them.

I could form a long list of the factual mistakes I've found and corrected in golf articles. Like Calvin Peete being a migrant farm worker to Dave Stockton making birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship to many more. I have worked with the pro golf tours when I have found mistakes in their records. My user page says WP has the best golf recordkeeping anywhere. It is not all my work or close to it*, Tewapack* has done great service around here as have others. So I don't like mistakes in articles and you've done it more than once. The attitude you show above in pooh pahing the Palmer mistake you made isn't helpful if you want to work with me.

As for reliably sourced content, there is too little around Wikipedia on anything golf related prior to the Tiger Woods era. Recentism has alot to do with it, as does that finding the history golf tours can be a very trying task*. Kathy Whitworth has won 88 LPGA tournaments more than any other player on that tour but the narrative record of it in her article is so thin it is sad. Why is it thin? There just isn't much written on Whitworth and or it is just very hard to find. Facts about Blalock before or after her LPGA troubles makes her career more detailed whether it is 100% directly related to the controversy or not. The article is partly a biography on her.

My user page says I'm particular about making sure an article is reliably sourced and I am but WP:OVERCITE is something I have long taken seriously too. You kept committing OVERCITE while I keep saying in my edit summaries that was why I was changing your work. The edit summaries I do is a message.

Your adding of detail is great and please add more if you find it, just be careful with the facts (If unsure you can always pop me a message here. I am online as long as I'm home), don't overclutter the article with ICs, and think some more on sourced content in golf articles before removing any of it.

• - Around four years ago, I did the work to create Whitworth's win and playoff boxes. She won 88 times and took part in 28 playoffs. To get those records compiled was incredibly hard. The LPGA Tour by its own admission in the tour's early days used to keep their record keeping in the trunk of somebody's car.

• - I try to limit my hornblowing or at least try to. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• - Tewapack has had next to nothing to do with the article. Before I created it, I asked for his help on naming it, he didn't give it. Tewapack didn't feel it was worthy of an article. No article on a sports #1 player being suspended for a year which caused a three-year legal battle? Lets say Tewapack and I don't always see eye to eye.
  • • Note: moving to Talk:Jane_Blalock_cheating_controversy#Request_for_your_input_here so other people can find it. If you have questions unrelated to the page, happy to continue talking on those topics here if you prefer.Earflaps (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

question

Hi WilliamJE! I noticed WP:OVERSIGHT is one of your pet peeves, which is fine. However, you're the only person I've ever seen revert changes on that ground alone. Are you sure you want to continue standing firm on that? Seems to me, accuracy and allowing readers to do proper research on the claims we make is more prevalent, in most cases, than saving people the hassle of looking at too many tiny numbers. Earflaps (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

J. Fred Johnson, Jr.

Hi-the Tennessee General Assembly has a database for their members and found the information about J. Fred Johnson, Jr. and added this to the article-thanks-RFD (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with user 79.74.58.104

Just to let you know WilliamJE, I have sorted out the user 79.74.58.104, who kept posting a personal attack. Completely unacceptable. If he does it again, the personal attack will be reported.

Renaming the Jane Blalock cheating controversy

Good morning! When you have a moment, I wanted to ask your opinion. While accurate, the current "Jane Blalock cheating controversy" title is maybe at odds with Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles (which recommends avoiding titles that hint at the editors' opinions about the event), and definitely at odds with WP:CRITS (which reads "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy.") I couldn't find an consistent title that the newspapers use to refer to the events, which would simplify things, unfortunately. The first alternatives that popped into my head were "Jane Blalock golf card violation conflict," "1972 LPGA scorecard conflict," and "LPGA vs. Jane Blalock," though I suppose the latter two only refer to part of the article's scope :/ . But wanted to see if you had better luck brainstorming. I assume Tewapack might have input too, though I think you mentioned earlier they weren't interested in picking a name. Earflaps (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have any suggestions. The title was the best I could come up. If someone could come up with something better, @Tewapack:, I don't have a problem. Your couple of ideas don't sound any better than the present title, but keep trying. There are other articles with controversy in the title but if we can find a way to remove it and give the article a better name it is fine with me. Would scandal be any better? There has been no worse golf cheating episode, true or false, so far as I know. What happened is just little remembered though I think the wikipedia article may have caused more people to remember it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

THere are indeed other titles with controversy, though I think that's mainly because most people are completely unaware of wp:crits, or the media already gave the event a commonly accepted name. That's my guess at least. I don't think my current ideas are great, but I do think they are better than the current because they fit the guidelines better. Also, I try and avoid scandal, I can loo around but I've run into guidelines that find the word too loaded with connotation. Though I won't move the page until I get at least one other person who concurs on a title. Earflaps (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Jane Blalock vs LPGA Tour might be an idea....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't have a problem with your idea. It actually would fit the guideline I was just looking through (found diddly squat on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople), but Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events) has some nice tips), which lays out a sort of "when, where, what" structure for an events title that is easily recognized by readers (and the when and where aren't really as relevant with these events as the what, I'd say, so just leaving the "what" descriptor aligns with some of the examples they use). Wonder if it would be weird to use the "vs." if that wasn't how the lawsuit was referred to on the docket, but then it probably was referred to that way. I'll look up some case proceedings, because why not. Earflaps (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you were basically right, except they left the tour part out and spelled out LPGA. Do you think the acronym would be enough for readers? The other seems so long. Earflaps (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Checked out Category:Lawsuits, naming convention seems to be to just use the full docket title. Will move on that grounds, feel free to move to something else if you have inspiration. Earflaps (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I'm working really hard on my next ebook (My last one was set in the world of the LPGA Tour) and only editing around here during times of writer's block....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Um

You might want to look at your own edit, before I ever touched the page. There is no inline reference. Please revert your reversions, or I really have no choice but to take you to arbitration for disruptive editing. Reversions are not a game, if either of us goes up to three, we could both be banned. Earflaps (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Lol, is that no? To arbitration we go. Oh fun. Earflaps (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing like this goes straight to Arbcom which tells me how little you know. Two- Do you really want to go that way when I can point somewhere 10 factual errors you have inserted into the two Blalock articles and instances of taking out referenced information. I can name two golf editors who got blocked for WP:DISRUPT after I reported them. One of whom is serving the last days of a two-week block for disruptive editng and personal attacks, something you just did before semi-reverting it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I never add in facts without a reference, so you'd need to list those "factual errors," if they even are errors. I also never removed relevant sourced information on the page, not once, we just disagree on the definition of "trivial" in some cases. Also, you never responded to my statement above. And no, I'm not considering arbcom if you don't modify your edit, I'm looking at the edit warring dispute page. There are enough incidents over the past month to paint a pretty obvious picture, that you habitually edit war and misuse the revert function. Earflaps (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the things you have done

Change Blalock's win total from 27 to 29.

the sources backed me up, as you well know.

Changed her place of residence from Cambridge to Boston even though Cambridge was and is referenced.

Boston was referenced as well in a good source, and I believe was the more recent residence.

Said money she won at a tournament was unofficial when it was official.

Oops. a mistake. I apologize.

Misstated the years she won tournaments in Japan.

I assume the source I used was inaccurate. So blame the newspaper.

Misstated the year she retired from the LPGA.

Again, this means the source I used was incorrect. Blame the newspaper.

Putting in the wrong hall of Fame she was inducted into.

A mistake, I was confused. You'll noticed I haven't reverted your correction.

There's more. That is just what I can think of off the top of my head....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Repeated_reversions_on_Jane_Blalock_v._LPGA. Thank you. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

To WilliamJE

I hate you so much WilliamJE! You love to 'REVERT' edits and 'NOT' help at all. Your word 'UNREFERENCED' annoys me!! You are the worst editor ever. I wish you retire!!