User talk:WilliamJE
Archives |
|---|
Contents
ANI[edit]
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(t•c) 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?
Blocked[edit]
{{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)
- 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)
- 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)
WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • change block settings • unblock • filter log)
Request reason:
Accept reason:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- William:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award[edit]
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. If.you 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)
- 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. If.you 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Iowa House of Representatives[edit]
Hey, thanks! Kind of wished I would've read your edit summary about the See also section before I re-made the mistake in its inclusion only to have to remove it again! Woo, lots of extra work on my part. Thanks again, anyway. --Southern Iowan (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Wait[edit]
Before you revert all my edits, can we please discuss? —GoldRingChip 15:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand your concert with WP:REDNO, but your reverts are removing much more than that. —GoldRingChip 15:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- REDNOT says 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
- Thank you for replying and waiting on your reverts. ß None of my links are red. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP:REDNO refers to creating links to "articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia" unlike the links I created. Many of these areticles can (and I hope someday will) be created. —GoldRingChip 15:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are creating dozens of redirects back to the main article page. That is a loop and that is both ridiculous and not needed. Remove the links that are redirects or redlinks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Ridiculous" to you, perhaps. They are needed because the aricle may someday be created AND because it then adds categories to them. There is no reason to delete links that are redirects; redirects are used all the time. I'm sorry I don't understand your "roof" question. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are ridiculous since it takes a reader right back to where they started. How would you like to be directed somewhere in your car and only to be right back at your starting point because it is a loop?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Saying something is "ridiculous" or "garbage" is not a great way to convince someone you're right. But still, I'm willing to discuss this with you. Many links do redirect back to the same article and that's not a good situtation, but it's only temporary until an intervening article is created. And that's their purpose. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Take it to the WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress talk page. I could have called them asinine horseshit which is what I really think of it. I am thoroughly sick of editors who can only read REDNOT where it spells out WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR when it clearly says See also and main article redlinks are not appropriate. You're not the first person to do it and not the first person who can't admit they were mistaken about REDNOT too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- And when are you going to fix the REDNOT violations you have created all over the place? About a dozen alone at United States House of Representatives elections, 1972. You can create things that violate guidelines but not fix them?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I knew there had to be something covering this. Please read WP:SELFRED which says- Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Saying something is "ridiculous" or "garbage" is not a great way to convince someone you're right. But still, I'm willing to discuss this with you. Many links do redirect back to the same article and that's not a good situtation, but it's only temporary until an intervening article is created. And that's their purpose. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- They are ridiculous since it takes a reader right back to where they started. How would you like to be directed somewhere in your car and only to be right back at your starting point because it is a loop?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Ridiculous" to you, perhaps. They are needed because the aricle may someday be created AND because it then adds categories to them. There is no reason to delete links that are redirects; redirects are used all the time. I'm sorry I don't understand your "roof" question. —GoldRingChip 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've made the correction to the 1972 article by creating all the missing articles. Thank you for your diligence. —GoldRingChip 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
New idea: Comment brackets[edit]
- Instead of deleteing the {{Main}} templates, could you please just enclose them in <!--{{Main|…}}--> comment brackets, please? I am in the process of creating the articles to which the templates would point. However, it's a very slow process and I'd like not to have to recreate the Main templates once completed. It would be easier, for me just to remove the comment brackets. —GoldRingChip 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: You just reverted my edits without reading this suggestion, above. What do you think about it, please? —GoldRingChip 11:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You restored[11] five main page links in that article, three of which were redlinks again AND NOT COMMENT BRACKETS. The edit was more wrong than right, so I reverted it. You want me to go through the laborious extra practice of putting in brackets. How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS. After all they are mistakes done by you in most cases?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. But what do you think about my idea of using comment brakets, please? —GoldRingChip 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can do it your way but I will do it mine. Both are valid....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I"m sorry I just don't understand you answer. Wikipedia editing isn't about "my way" and "your way," it's about devising good systems that work well. I'm proposing a way to hide them in accordance with the style guide without having to delete them. Such a method is used, for example, when images violate use guides… the images are hidden in comment brackets until they can be resolved. That's what I'm proposing here. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 14:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- So what do you think? —GoldRingChip 16:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I already said what I think. You just don't like it. You have made numerous messes and have done very little to fix them and instead complain at me. As I said up above 'How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS.' I've seen very little action by you on that and at least a dozen pages are affected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've done everything you asked. What do you mean? Ever since you pointed this out, I've stopped using the {{main}} template and built article after article to employ the template properly. —GoldRingChip 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I already said what I think. You just don't like it. You have made numerous messes and have done very little to fix them and instead complain at me. As I said up above 'How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS.' I've seen very little action by you on that and at least a dozen pages are affected....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- So what do you think? —GoldRingChip 16:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I"m sorry I just don't understand you answer. Wikipedia editing isn't about "my way" and "your way," it's about devising good systems that work well. I'm proposing a way to hide them in accordance with the style guide without having to delete them. Such a method is used, for example, when images violate use guides… the images are hidden in comment brackets until they can be resolved. That's what I'm proposing here. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 14:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You can do it your way but I will do it mine. Both are valid....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. But what do you think about my idea of using comment brakets, please? —GoldRingChip 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- You restored[11] five main page links in that article, three of which were redlinks again AND NOT COMMENT BRACKETS. The edit was more wrong than right, so I reverted it. You want me to go through the laborious extra practice of putting in brackets. How about you doing that before I just remove the REDNOTS and SELFREDS. After all they are mistakes done by you in most cases?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Dominicana DC-9 air disaster[edit]
I finally moved the page back to its original title, and I even updated the infobox which previously read "Dominicana flight 603" to "Dominicana DC-9 air disaster" to improve the article further. And I apologize for the raging you saw in my previous reply. I was angry and I couldn't take it. If you haven't read my user page I'm autistic (I'm also impatient), also I added how I get upset. I hope you can forgive me for the page moving the raging, everything (except I think the damage is already done). Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC) UPDATE: You have not replied to me yet, which makes it hard to tell whether or not I'm forgiven, and that makes me nervous and anxious. Plus, I'm an impatient person. Sorry. Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Evan Commager[edit]
Of course, notability is relative and your relative isn't my relative -- for sure. I had thought your problem was that the fact that the author was from Bennettsville wasn't substantiated, not that she wasn't notable. So you're welcome to your opinion here; I'm sure its intended 100% in good faith.842U (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Economic History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos[edit]
Hi there. Sorry I started out Economic History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos so short. I was still working out the kinks in the longer text and I felt I needed something online so I could gradually expand within the mainspace. (I have logistical reasons for not wanting this on my sandbox.) There's a lot more material, actually, but I just want to be able to vet it as I go along and let the article grow gradually as I struggle with the readings/references. - Alternativity (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Removing some cars by decade categories[edit]
I don't get why you removed some, but not all, cars by decade categories (e.g. 1970s cars) from car pages. You seemed to pick earlier decades while leaving newer ones. What was your thinking behind that? I get WP:OVERCAT but each of those decades was equally valid. --Vossanova o< 15:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Vossanova:, @TKOIII: It is very simple- Overcategorization. Why you can't read my edit summaries and put two and two together is beyond me. 1970s cars is the parent category of Cars introduced in 1975 as I noted here[12]. It is overcategorization to put a article in the parent and its subcategory....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, the fact that the introduction year category was a subcat of the cars by decade category wasn't made clear in the edit summaries. Yes, it makes sense that a car introduced in a certain year would also be a car of that decade. I would personally prefer all decade categories be shown in the same place for consistency, but I can't really argue that Cars introduced by year doesn't belong under Cars by decade. Disregard my edits and I'll wait and see if anyone else cares or not. --Vossanova o< 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is a mess, and we could even be best deleting these decade categories as unworkable.
- See Renault 20/30. It belongs in Category:Cars introduced in 1975. Now if we remove (as you've just done) Category:1970s cars yet leave Category:1980s cars, this creates the totally misleading impression that this was "a car of the '80s" (it wasn't - the Renault 25 took over from both, from early in the '80s).
- OVERCAT is all too often a simplistic and unconstructive rule, if applied as unchangeable dogma. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bullshit and hogwash. Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also.
- As for succeeding decades of a car in production for multiple decades, Renault 20/30 was, I don't really care one way or another but as it stands cars produced over multiple decades, say introduced in 1982 and produced to 2002, are categorized as 90s and 00s cars. I have been leaving those....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you're not interested in discussing this any further. I get it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have answered everyone here. You just don't like the answer- 'Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also'.
SixSeven editors and counting don't grasp WP:OVERCAT unless it is spelled out in big red letters....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have answered everyone here. You just don't like the answer- 'Cars introduced is just another form of establishment categories. If something is established in a certain year it doesn't go in that year's decade also'.
- OK, so you're not interested in discussing this any further. I get it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- The first rational solution here is to make categories like Category:Cars introduced in 1975 as {{non-diffusing subcategory}} of the Category:1970s cars and leave related articles in both. Or second solution, rename parent Category:1970s cars to Category:Cars introduced in the 1970s and purge non-related articles from it. 46.211.69.178 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)