User talk:WilliamJE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This user tries to leave Wikipedia, but finds that he can'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.


Information icon 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)

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(tc) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@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(tc) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
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)

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)

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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WilliamJE (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter 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)

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)
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)
  1. Please take the advice of Boing! said Zebedee
  2. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


Hi you reverted my delsort on the above Afd. I put USA rather than Washington because it is a nation-wide award and not just a Washington state award. I don't see the point in reverting my edit when you could have just added Washington. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I don't see the point in complaining rather than fixing one's mistakes at deletion sorting. Apparently it is a habit around here. See the discussion thread just above this one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not complaining I'm just suggesting that there is a better way of doing it rather than reverting good faith edits from other editors in good standing. As it says here WP:STATUSQUO "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." This essay will probably help you understand why I am the second person leaving a message on your talk page about your reverts, WP:DONTREVERT. The complaint departement is not on your talk page but when you edit in a way that is not keeping with normal editing pratices then expect to get pinged! All other pages that are related to a subject in a particular country are sorted to that particular country. There may be specific guidelines about the USA but the delsort tool doesn't show that. I use it to avoid others having to go back over any Afd that I start when new pages partrolling and doing it themselves then rather than reverting wand leaving sniffy messages how about trying to be a little bit more diplomatic. This is obviously a subject that you feel strongly about which is fine but maybe being a little less bitey would be a good idea. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You just wrote 196 words saying you're not complaining. As I have wrote to you and North America, you rather complain than fix your mistakes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
you don't get it do you? I'm suggesting.that your revert was unnecessary and pointing to an essay that explains why and suggesting what to do instead. I call that constructive communication and not complaining. don't or won't understand the difference I can't really help you. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Your not complaining again. How about fixing your fixing your mistakes and reading what it says at the top of the USA deletion sorting page. Don't come back to this page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Cosmos season

I've read your incredibly entertaining user page and gained immediate respect for you. At the AfD discussion for the 2018 Cosmos season, you voted to delete the article. I've been frustrated over the past few days, because I have raised the point that the 2018 Cosmos season has received coverage from ESPN and NBC Sports, and no one supporting deletion has addressed that point. The team has played only one match so far, so I'm not sure what folks expect to find. In my opinion, there has been significant, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the club. That means the content of the article meets WP:GNG. Is it your opinion that WP:NSEASONS supplants WP:GNG? At WP:NSPORTS, it says that the guidelines on that page are meant to help make determinations about WP:GNG, not to override the general guideline. Do you find the coverage inadequate to meet WP:GNG? The word significant is explained as meaning nontrivial, but I think some people are taking it to mean widespread. I'm not sure, since no one is addressing the point I've made. People are just ignoring it and saying the article should be deleted. As I said on the AfD page, the article is titled incorrectly, and it should be moved to 2018 New York Cosmos B season. However, the content is clearly notable. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Alvin Duskin

You removed the deletion tag from Alvin Duskin, but didn't help to clarify anything. I can't even tell if Alvin Duskin is a person or a company. The article is one sentence with 6 different subjects that don't seem to be related to each other at all. If you remove the deletion tag, please address the reason it was tagged. Natureium (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts on Folsom, New Mexico

I'm going to report you for edit warring and piss-poor behavior. Smallchief (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. Smallchief (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

delsort rhode island

Sorry all the bungling, I confused my self as to what you meant. Thanks, cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump divorce

The editor created an article on the so-called Trump Divorce in order to circumvent the removal from the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Thanks for the heads up. I put the AFD at the proper deletion sorting pages- Law, Florida, Politics. Should it go at Language to cover WP:NEO also since you mention it? I will chime in at AFD tomorrow. My bed time is near. I get up around 5:30 every morning and hit the sack around 9:30 most nights....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
  • Personally I don't think Language needs it, but that's up to you. I'd have CSD'd if I could have. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As it turns out, he was already blocked and this was a sockpuppet. Blocked again and a couple of articles deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Since we usually use scripts to sort articles, so most of people don't see the top of the notice. So please be patient if someone sorted wrong, and you just correct them, don't be angry, thank you! Hhkohh (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nicely put. Glad to see civility here. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WilliamJE reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: ). Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't tried to refute my arguments (Most likely you haven't read them) or take it to WikiProject Baseball as I said. So call what I do silliness and you go crying to your fellow admins. Says a great deal about your character, BHG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

William, you are up to four reverts at Category:Rayne Red Sox players. Will you reply at WP:AN3 and promise to stop warring? There may still be time for you to revert your last change. Avoiding edit wars is not that hard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Longhair\talk 02:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

WilliamJE (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21649 was submitted on May 27, 2018 17:15:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


We've probably crossed our paths somewhere or my memory might be playing tricks.....Anyways, since I saw your name being mentioned at WP:GOLF, can you please help in the assessment of notability of Draft:Atthaya Thitikul.Thanks,~ Winged BladesGodric 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, @MatthewVanitas: Thitkul passes WP:NGOLF with flying colors. She won a professional golf tournament NGOLF criteria #4, and she has made the cut in a women's major championship #5. The article needs a rewrite because of NPOV issues but notability is clearly established....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks:) I'll be indulging in a re-write within the next few days and will be accepting it.Again, thanks for your comments. ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

US Deletion sorting

You come across as under the impression that the US deletion sorting page is only for entities/subjects originally from the US. However, there is no precedent for this type of strict interpretation of what should be on the page. Historically, the US deletion sorting page is used for articles that are US based, and when the articles don't expound further upon which states. It is also used for multinational companies that have offices in the US and the state(s) are not stated in the articles. The page can also be used for political matters that concern the US as a whole. Other examples exist. I am concerned that you have been claiming WP:OWNERSHIP of the page with your own ideas, but there is no consensus anywhere that I can find stating that listings at US deletion sorting can only be for entities originally from the US. Furthermore, all you are ultimately accomplishing with your interpretation is limiting Wikipedia's readers and editors from learning about US-related topics that are being discussed at Afd. Please seriously reconsider your stance, and take a look back at the revision history for the page to note the precedent I am stating. North America1000 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

He had undid my sorting here --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
A corporation with its US office in Florida. US deletion sorting says at the top of the page- "This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area." Can you read that or my edit summary[11] that removed it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't following that page so didn't see that edit. I only saw the summary what you wrote when removing the US sorting from the deletion request. "Not a deletion sorting for this page." --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The article itself didn't say it's in Florida, hence me sorting it to the main country catagory. But looking at the website it indeed say that the office is located in Florida. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The statement that Evans is american is unreferenced. What don't you understand about that. The LATimes article says he is back at his day job, the bbc article says he is from Suffolk and worked in London. I am not claiming ownership of the page, just cleaning up the bullshit deposited there by people every day. You full well know what it says at the top of the page. BTW, you're justifying your edit with WP:OR aka 'If he's an American, he's likely an American citizen now.' OR and unreferenced. Shame on you for coming after editors who want to keep up the shit around here when you're committing bs yourself....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about your overall pattern of editing on the page, not only this one discussion about this one topic. I am concerned that your stance is that only subjects and entities originally from should be listed on the page, which unnecessarily excludes many topics. Looking through the Revision history for the page, it is peppered with your edit summaries qualifying my concerns, such as "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US", "He's from Texas so he doesn't go here", ":Her being from the United States is unreferenced. I looked for references and found zilch." Subjects are often active in other areas of the US than the states they are originally from. Furthermore, and importantly, there is no consensus anywhere for the page to be minimized as you have been doing, such as limiting entries to subjects/topics only originally from the US. Also, please don't attempt to "shame" people who are concerned about your actions, and try to be more civil. There is no precedent for deletion sorting entries to be based upon side-research as you have performed; it's based upon what's actually in the articles. North America1000 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If you'd even done the slightest research, you'd found these edits here[12] and here[13], which first added American marketing businesspeople and american to the article when the original person who started the article never said they were American. A wrong category edit and then someone resummarizing the article used the category for the basis. You're wrong, so why don't you fess up and stop bugging me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
And what's this edit[14] but more mistakes by you. It was at Florida already[15] and no longer at US[16] when you added it. Doubly wrong and what do you have to say @Northamerica1000:?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: please see also his edit [17] Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I must admit I don't understand why the use of this category is so strictly enforced. I have never seen anyone else revert or reply in such an agressive manner about deletion sorting categories such as was done here User_talk:WilliamJE#Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award. That award is open for students from any state in America but because it is awarded by a research centre in Seattle for some reason it can only be included is that state's deletion sorting page. I don't see any reason why 1 person gets to decide what is and what isn't allowed on that page as they don't WP:OWN that subject and don't seem to have any special rights. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Also it's pretty arrogant to qualify any action that doesn't conform to your own particular reading of a subject as a "mistake". Dom from Paris (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
And just to conclude I was reverted a second time and admonished here User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States. There was nothing in the article or the sources that suggested the subject came from any particular state or anything about where her business is based but I was basically told I should have done more research to find out where she was born lives or lived to define what sorting category I should have used. And what about if I find nothing? Does that mean there is no geographical sorting allowed? Dom from Paris (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please everyone be civil about this. Swearing and personal attacks help no one. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

People accuse me of arrogance but I admit when I make a wrong edit. Here[18], here[19], here[20], and here[21] for just four examples. Haven't heard Northamerica reply yet. And who's arrogant?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Well the edit summaries I see seem hostile and there are a number of swearing and name calling in the thread above. This is just a general reminder for everybody to perhaps calm down and have a cup of tea.--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

AN3 complaint

Hello WilliamJE. There is still an open complaint about you for edit warring at this link. The complaint is that you constantly remove AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America when your theory is that they don't qualify. Since the report was filed, an editor has tried to solve the general issue by opening a thread at at the Deletion sorting WikiProject. Are you planning to participate in this effort to create a guideline and to abide by the result? If so, you might want to comment on the situation at AN3, to assist whichever admin closes the report. I notice you have edited recently, since the discussion was opened, but so far have not participated in the guideline proposal. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @EdJohnston: I am busy at the moment with getting my next ebook out for publication. My time here has been limited for two days and will be so till I submit the story to Amazon. I'm not ignoring anything, just don't have lots of time. (If you want I'll private message you with links showing my author page and a message dated July 5th at a website saying I will have my next book out later this month) Sometime I will respond to North's thread but now sure when....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It shouldn't take much time for you to respond and agree to abide by whatever consensus is found for deletion sorting. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Here it is July 13, you are still editing and you haven't responded about consensus. Should I close the AN3 report assuming that you won't cooperate? EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Still editing= Only so far as my watchlist goes and then if its an obviously bad edit. Yearly aviation accident templates are on my watchlist and the 2nd edit is related to the first. 1981 aviation accident article doesn't get put in 1999 template (My 5 edits there are more than any other editor. Next highest is 3) and vice versa. Ronald Rich AFD was started yesterday when I drank my first cup of coffee. (Proofreading when only first getting some caffeine in their system isn't a good idea if a writer wants to sell ebooks.) A check of my edit history shows my first edits are around 0600 Florida east coast time and my last of the day around 2100-2200. That's if I'm not too busy writing and preparing a novel for publication. I have 23 at Amazon. Dear wife gets up for work M-F at 0530. She attends daily Roman Catholic mass before starting work. We seldom sleep past 0600.
I looked at the thread. What use is there in me replying? Everyone is in agreement. I'm either rubber stamping it or a lone voice of dissent. Not going to comment and not going to cause trouble....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
So, you are agreeing to accept whatever conclusion the other editors may reach at the USA delsort guideline thread and you will abide by that standard in your future edits? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Yes I will....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In response to your edit summary "If a[n] (sic) author born in New York, his s corp ebook publisher registered in Florida, thinks up a new story while on vacation in Georgia, about two people turned into dung beetles in Mississippi by a Wizard's apprentice whose boss has shops in many locations, where do you deletion sort it? Believe it not the story exists............" I would file it under the US category as well as any of the other states deletion category where he has significant recognition. For this, probably New York and possibly Florida as editors that patrol those category might know more of the author and chime in. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have closed the AN3 complaint with the wording that you will 'accept whatever conclusion the other editors may reach at the USA delsort guideline thread and will abide by that standard in your future edits'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Meaning behind your signature

What's the meaning behind your signature and the complains department being on the roof? Just curious. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

I made an edit to Saudia Flight 163 and pointed out that it was Saudi Arabia's worst aircraft accident and the L-1011's worst accident. It got reverted apparently because there is consensus not to include such information. Can you tell me where this consensus comes from, maybe a discussion where it was established? Thank you. Funplussmart (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here you go.[22]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand now. Thank you. Funplussmart (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)