User talk:WilliamJE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Formula One season[edit]

You have filed the AfD but not actually put anything into the AfD discussion page. As that was confusing the daily log, I have created a framework page: all you need to do now is replace the part between < and > with your reasons for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

Greetings, noting here that the community has enacted an one way interaction ban on you from Nyttend. Meaning that (per WP:IBAN) you are not allowed to comment on Nyttend in any way, edit his user or user talk page, reply to him in a discussion, revert in one way or another his edits or use the "thanks" function with him. There is a standard "exception list" on WP:BANEX and if you want to appeal the ban see WP:UNBAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Continental Express Flight 2286[edit]

There is consensus on the Continental Express Flight 2286 talk page for using that name as the page name. This consensus is based on the fact that the NTSB report repeatedly describes the flight name as "Continental Express Flight 2286", as well as multiple media sources that used "Continental Express Flight 2286" to describe the flight, per WP:COMMONNAME. It would appear that you erroneously edited a direct quote from a media source, believing it to be editable content. I assume in good faith that this was just a misunderstanding, and am sure that with a more careful read, you will see that the quote is correct and that "Continental Express Flight 2286" is how the flight in question is normally described in common usage. If you disagree, please discuss further on the talk page for that article before making further edits. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's resolve this once and for all. Shall we leave it as Continental Express Flight 2286 or shall we change it to Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286? MattChatt18 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jacqueline Logan[edit]

Hello WilliamJE, I noticed that you recently deleted Jacqueline Logan from the List of people from Decatur, Illinois page and was wondering how you came to that conclusion. It is apparent that there is little, if any reference to her Decatur connections on Wikipedia but that does not mean that she is not from Decatur. I have found this quote on page 26, of the Sunday, August 8, 1926 Decatur Daily Review, Decatur, Illinois: "Jacqueline Logan. Decatur's own motion picture star, can be seen this week at the Avon In "Footloose Widows." The picture Is based on a recent story. Jackie has many ardent followers In Decatur." That was over 50 years before she was buried in Decatur and being described as "Decatur's own" would imply that at some point in time she had a close connection to Decatur. Is there a WP standard for being from a place? Can someone be from more than one place? I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks for your contributions to WP. BuffaloBob (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@BuffaloBob: Feel free to put her back in the list article but I'd also put that in as a reference both in her article and the list article. Logan's article makes no mention of Decatur. Though I will say something, sometimes a person will go to school in Foo when they are actually from Fooville. Years later an article will claim that person was their own. I saw that with one Phil or Joe Niekro and Bridgeport, Ohio. The brothers grew up in nearby Martins Ferry, Ohio per many reliable source but graduated from a school in Bridgeport. Notable people guidelines at US Cities WikiProject say lived or born not buried or went to school in Foo as criteria for adding a name.
If my bookselling at Amazon (I have 16 books that I authored for purchase that have made me between $160 and $2,000 a month since April 2014) ever makes me a famous author, somebody might wrongly conclude I'm from Deerfield Beach, Florida because I went to high school there but in fact lived in next door Lighthouse Point, Florida Re-add Logan if you want. I make no objection. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Contributing info to a discussion[edit]

Curious we are extended family of Clifford Brady who you authored an entry about. Have some photos if you would like them to add to the page. Don't really know how this all works. Thanks for the entry though. Grew up to stories about my Great grandpa Brady and looking at pics and newspaper clippings of him with Ty Cobb...but it was cool to see an outsiders input on it. Taeleen1 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 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 contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

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)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
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)