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.

Archives

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

About red links

Those red links help readers find the way that the articles haven't been created, removing them will confuse readers:

Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.
— WP:RED

333 -blue 22:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very conveniently forgetting WP:REDNOT which is a part of that same page you're linking. To quote-

Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.

An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

Certain types of redlinks aren't allow. Ones to categories, Main and Further templates, and See also links. There was a talk page discussion[1] on some of that late last year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we always use them on tennis articles, same as before, and nobody except you say that is not OK. 333 -blue 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument used in that talk page discussion too except it was for law articles. It didn't pass muster if you would bother to read it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all tennis editors accept them. 333 -blue 23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read Argumentum ad populum....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't what did you mean "the roof". The article says: three men make a tiger. 333 -blue 23:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to remove all red links in those tennis articles. 333 -blue 00:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pang other editors to discuss with them. 333 -blue 10:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You pang what you think will be a friendly audience. This is wikipedia policy. Go to WP:RED's talk page. That is where a community discussion should take place. Also remember what it reads about category redlinks. It says they should never be made. I warn you- I will take you to ANI if re-add one again. You re-added two last night....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved the discussion to WT:RED. 333 -blue 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —S Marshall T/C 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel no need to respond to this till either someone makes a comment on it that I need to address or seondly you properly file an ANI complaint. That it the job of the OP and so far you have failed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WilliamJE. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Also, another thought is if an image was "published" by being publicly displayed... sometimes that works. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Fast Clip.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fast Clip.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got it fixed for you. Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Nickells to prime time, no sense wasting time with an AfC reviewer (AfC is where articles go to die... meh). Next draft, feel free to create a sandbox in your userspace, such as User:WilliamJE/Articletitlehere and create and save your draft that way, then move it into article space once you have it ready to go (I have craploads of these, see, e.g. User:Montanabw/Dude Rancher Lodge) and then you can, if you choose, put a speedy deletion tag on the sandbox (or not). Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wei Hang Flight 252

Hello WilliamJE. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wei Hang Flight 252, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: although certainly non-notable, this is not a hoax - see comment at the AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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[2] and Orlady[3] and then Nyttend's threat at the very top of[4] 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[5] talk page (Until this week when I uploaded a photo I've never edited at Commons) and used his backup account[6] 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[7] 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[8] 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[9]

He's called me a stalker at least once[10] 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[11] 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]

Heading to the roof

That's quite a confusing signature you've got there, particularly when used on a comment that's shorter than it! I had to reread your post to realise that you weren't pinging a "William" with an oblique reference to complaints. You might want to change the font size or put some dashes at the start of it or something. --McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Make it look more like a normal sig. There are rules about signatures... --Elvey^(t•c) 21:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cute signature, perhaps just a different font color would do the trick, maybe with the "small" parameter. Montanabw^(talk) 01:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pure vandalism

My vandalism is sourced from the finest ingredients to ensure it is the purest and most innovative vandalism on the market.

Rich Homie Hitta (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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!! Another thing, why the Jedward are you called WilliamJE?! I guess the Jedward word means JEdward, Jedward. You are such a Jedward editor, meaning Jedward bad Jedward editor, Jedward! Your word 'unreferenced', WilliamJEdward means Jedward, Jedward!