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.

I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.

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

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]

About deleting the 1920 O/400 crash...

I didn't realize when I added this accident that it had previously been listed and then deleted, but I think the fact this crash falls afoul of the list guideline shows a weakness in the guideline. If you're going to remove anything, remove my addition of the 1930 Junkers F.13 crash, which was of a much smaller airplane in a later era. I had my own doubts about that one, but decided it was suitable because it was an in-flight breakup of an all-metal airplane, which would still have made it exceptional at the time. But that's a lot weaker than "first fatal crash of an airliner in regular commercial service", a fact which I've since mentioned when I undid your deletion. Not to mention that the O/400, despite its limited capacity, was still one of the largest passenger aircraft (or aircraft of any kind) in service in 1920. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to change the list criteria first. This does not meet it and will be removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi William, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh 666 23:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jesse Hickman

In the case of the 1962 Colts images, they were images sent to the Colt .45s during/after the expansion draft for the now-Astros, so they had the uniforms of their 1961 teams, which in Hickman's case was the Phillies. I rewrote the description to better clarify. Wizardman 21:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban enforcement requested

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. 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 ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

As you know, this block is in response to your violation of the one-way IBAN, which was implemented by the community in response to longterm, grudge-based harassment. I have read your comments at AN/I, and I don't find your plea of innocence convincing. I've greatly expanded on that view at WP:AN/I, which I've linked to in your block log. You've already been blocked numerous times for this behavior, you've been threatened with an indef, and yet again I'm letting you off with a fairly short block. We can't keep cutting you this type of slack. If there's any indication of continued harassment after this, your next block from me will be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 20:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, William. I hope all is well with you & your family, & I hope your clean bill of health continues, this holiday season and in the years to come! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Precious four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WilliamJE. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Aronberg

Hi William. You and I have worked together in the past on the Dave Aronberg article. Lately, an SPA has been adding a lot of material that I question the need for. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if you share a similar view? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) You did a good job editing out the promotional things in the article. I put Dave Aronberg back on my watch list in order to watch that SPA's future work if any on the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he got a new account. I left him another warning. His IP is in Palm Beach County. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the switching of accounts. How do you know his IP? I'm PBC too. Should I open a sock puppet investigation? He's using multiple accounts and both are SPAs with possible COI. An ANI is another idea. Let me know....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He accidentally logged out during his spree [11] . That's the only edit by that IP. He most likely is a sock of the other one. I'm going on vacation tomorrow, so I won't be around for a week or so. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone took care of that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622

FFS! Give editors a chance to write the article before nominating it for deletion - 44 minutes after creation is not on! OK, some editors post a stub to start with, others like to write at least a start class article at creation. Had you perfomed WP:BEFORE, you would have seen that there was a fine line between accident and disaster in this case. It is arguable that an article is justified despite the lack of deaths. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and I have noticed this on other posts that you quickly nominate for deletion, please, GIVE it some time. Martinillo (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saudia Flight 163

I am very sorry for this, you reverted to the last revision without further explanation. All of those names of the three pilot crew were true, that two Saudis and one American (Mohamed Ali Khowyter, Sami Abdullah Hussain and Bradley Curtis) on the cockpit. Even the flight times were also right just like other aircraft accident Wikipedia articles. It can be sure this source is proving to be right as proper standard usage of WP:IRS.

Safetyengineering.com is a personal website run by Jim Thomson and the essay is written by him. Self published websites fail WP:RS (For example, and it involves this very flight, check out this discussion[12] concerning another self-published article) and most of your detail on the flying history of the pilots are based on that. Also some of it is incoherent. To quote- "Although he was not a gifted pilot that his records showed him as a slow learner and needs proper training." The use of Although makes no sense. He wasn't a gifted pilot, then his being a slow learner would make be logical but with the word although at the front it does't. If he was a gifted pilot, then although would be appropriate wording. More importantly, the detailing on the flight crew is based on the Thomson article.

You mention WP:IRS. What you don't mention is part of that very same page, WP:RSSELF which reads- "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable." Mr Thomson wrote the article[13] and he identifies himself on safetyengineering.com's main page as the owner of the website....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing- we don't list the flight attendants usually. Wikipedia is not a memorial. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

Write something coherent and properly sourced and add it to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Swissair Flight 111 article includes aircraft, passengers and crew and accident details

Aircraft

The aircraft, a 7-year old McDonnell Douglas MD-11, serial number 48448, registration HB-IWF, was manufactured in 1991 and Swissair was its only operator. It bore the title of Vaud, in honour of the Swiss canton of the same name. The cabin was configured with 241 seats. First and business class seats were equipped with in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE). The aircraft was powered by three Pratt & Whitney 4462 turbofan engines and had logged about 36,000 hours before the crash.

Crew

The pilot-in-command was 50-year-old Urs Zimmermann. At the time of the accident, he had approximately 10,800 hours of total flying time, of which 900 hours were in an MD-11. He was also an instructor pilot for the MD-11. Before his career with Swissair, he was a fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force. Zimmermann was described as a friendly person with professional skills, who always worked with exactness and precision.

The first officer, 36-year-old Stefan Löw, had approximately 4,800 hours of total flying time, including 230 hours on the MD-11. He was an instructor on the MD-80 and A320. From 1982 to 1990, he had been a pilot in the Swiss Air Force.

The cabin crew comprised a maître de cabine (purser) and eleven flight attendants. All crew members on board Swissair Flight 111 were qualified, certified, and trained in accordance with Swiss regulations under the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).

Flight timeline

The flight took off from New York's John F. Kennedy Airport at 20:18 Eastern Daylight Time (00:18 UTC, September 3). From 20:33 EDT (00:33 UTC) until 20:47 EDT (00:47 UTC), the aircraft experienced a thirteen-minute radio blackout, which was later determined to be due to communication radios tuning errors.

At 22:10 Atlantic Time (01:10 UTC), the flight crew detected an odor in the cockpit and determined it to be smoke from the air conditioning system. Following the captain's request, the crew turned off the air conditioning vent. Four minutes later, the odor returned and the smoke became visible, prompting the pilots to make a "pan-pan" radio call to the air traffic control Moncton. ATC Moncton, which is in the province of New Brunswick, controls air traffic over the neighbouring province of Nova Scotia, including most flights en route to or from Europe. The pan-pan call indicated that there was an urgency due to smoke in the cockpit but did not declare an emergency as denoted by a "Mayday" call. The crew requested a diversion to Logan International Airport, Boston. They then accepted ATC Moncton's offer of a vector to the closer Halifax International Airport in Enfield, Nova Scotia, 66 nm (104 km) away rather than Boston, which was 234 nautical miles (433 km) further away.

At 22:18 AT (01:18 UTC), ATC Moncton handed over traffic control of the plane to Halifax Terminal Control Unit, a specialized ATC unit managing traffic in and out of Halifax. At 22:19 AT (01:19 UTC), the crew requested more distance for the aircraft to descend from 21,000 feet (6,400 m) when they were advised the aircraft was 30 nautical miles (56 km) away from Halifax International Airport. At 22:20 AT (01:20 UTC), upon the crew's fuel dump request, ATC Halifax diverted the plane south toward St. Margaret's Bay, where it was safer for the aircraft to dump fuel but still within 30 nautical miles (56 km) of Halifax.

In accordance with the Swissair checklist entitled "In case of smoke of unknown origin", the crew shut off the power supply in the cabin, which also turned off the recirculating fans in the ceiling. This created a vacuum in the ceiling space above the passenger cabin and induced the fire to spread into the cockpit, cutting off the power of autopilot. At 22:24:28 AT (01:24:28 UTC), the crew informed ATC Halifax that "we now must fly manually", followed by an emergency declaration. Ten seconds later, the crew declared an emergency again "And we are declaring emergency now Swissair one eleven", which were the last words received from Flight 111.

The flight data recorder stopped recording at 22:25:40 AT (01:25:40 UTC), followed one second later by the cockpit voice recorder. The aircraft briefly resumed transmitting secondary radar returns from 22:25:50 AT (01:25:50 UTC) to 22:26:04 AT (01:26:04 UTC), at which time the aircraft's altitude was 9,700 feet. After that only primary radar returns, which do not provide altitude information, were received. The captain did not return to his seat; whether he was killed by the fire, asphyxiated by the smoke, or killed in the crash is not known. Flight data recording shows that engine three (the right hand engine) was shut down due to an engine fire approximately one minute before impact, implying that the first officer was still alive and continued trying to fly the aircraft until the final moments of the flight. Due to this, the plane banked to the right and started to fall from the sky and due to the smoke the pilot was inward of the turn. At 22:31:18 AT (01:31:18 UTC), the aircraft struck the ocean at an estimated speed of 345 mph (555 km/h, 154 m/s, or 299 knots) and with a force of the order of 350 g, causing the aircraft to disintegrate instantly. The crash location was approximately 44°24′33″N 63°58′25″W / 44.40917°N 63.97361°W / 44.40917; -63.97361, +/-300 meters.

ApprenticeFan work 12:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand but I can improvise with the aircraft details were given at the time of the accident, but not with the names of pilots listed above as I given with the agreement of WP:MEMORIAL, including the described flight attendants. ApprenticeFan work 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy section needed

Hi! In this diff you mentioned a policy briefly but didn't note the location of the policy (we don't list those who died unless they are notable. An article would establish their notability.) It would be most helpful if you could point us to the text of this policy with the other article exemption, so this mistake won't be repeated in other Aviation articles. Please advise. Thanks for your help! Spintendo 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt:, @MilborneOne:, @Samf4u: would you like to chime in on this? This has been discussed at the talk page of either WikiProject Aviation or WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force or both on multiple occasions and these editors are also aware of it and can say the same thing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's only an essay but I believe the guidelines at the Passengers section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) should be used for all aircraft accident articles. If the cockpit crew is mentioned in an official report (NTSB for example) than they may be in the article. No flight attendants, pursers etc. and certainly no passengers that don't have a WP article. - Samf4u (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that content coverage within an article is not governed only by those essays. Rather, it is also goverened by the principle of due weight and other content policies. I understand if there may be several different discussions all covering the guidance you mentioned, and you may feel put on the spot to point me in the right direction. That being said, I don't expect to be shown the yellow brick road to all of them. My faith remains firmly in your ability to point me in the right direction of at least one of them. Please advise. Spintendo 05:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given answers multiple times. I can't help it if you don't like the answers. The section had obvious multiple problems that an experienced editor should be able to see Including

1- WP:NOTINHERITED

2- Unreferenced

3- Barnes and Noble (Or Amazon) author page (which BTW said the person died in 1980 not 1979 the year Flight 191 crashed) doesn't establish notability.

4- A photo gallery and an article published by their employer aren't enough to establish notability.

5- One entry is a case of WP:SYNTH. A website that mentions a John Wear at the University Wisconsin and a second personal geneology website (Read WP:SPSRS]] Personal websites are not considered reliable) that lists a J Wear of Madison among the dead. Two sources are being combined to say this is the same person in the article's victims list. Read WP:SYNTH.

Furthermore they all don't have an article and there are the guidelines that are cited above. Not having an article is a basis for not listing a person at multiple WikiProjects not just Aviation. I'm not answering here anymore. Go here[14] next time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that you need to consider WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:UNDUE. Lists of non-notable people are not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash

This is the second or third time I am writing regarding you nominating these wikipedia pages immediately after crashes. You constantly do it and use the same arguments (more specifically) WP:NOTNEWS, is everything really not new to you? This was a very tragic accident as were the ones you nominated for deletion previously. Myself and other wikipedia users have become very annoyed of this and I would love for you to address it, rather than just push it under the rug. Thank you! Martinillo (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]