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.

Hello

I'm sorry to bother you since we've never had any interaction before but I need an ally at the moment. I've gotten into a debate on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licence_to_Kill#Questionable_word. Upon review I noticed that you weighed into this issue in the past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Licence_to_Kill#Edit_warring_over_the_word_.27raped.27) and that we seen to share the same point of view that it is a matter of opinion. Unfortunately the issue is being steamrolled by a single editor who thinks his word it law and has gotten very nasty in his repsonses. I understand if you don't want to get involved in this again. But I would really appreciate your help. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie. There are several editors who disagree with you and the consensus is very much against you. You somehow seem to think you are the sole arbiter of the wording of this based on your POV: you are not, and the current consensus version remains until it actively changes on the talk page, regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

See my reply at the LTK talk page....William 14:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bother you again but could use your help again on the Licence to Kill page. I proposed a compromise the other day but now some are trying to undo the compromise to get their way. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING: smart! - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Try reading what Canvassing has to say. Under appropriate notifications are-

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Either of which I'd qualify under. Still haven't gotten the LTK book....William 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the book: you've been told by several editors that its contents are immaterial as far as it relates to the film. As to CANVASS, if neutrally worded messages are left on all editors pages who took part, that's not canvassing: coming to one person who has expressed a view that supports your own certainly is canvassing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If the LK book is immaterial, so are all the books you keep citing since they don't have any direct connection to the movie. Therefore we are back to the movie and rape or any other similar term to it is never used plus MOSPLOT says-

Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.

The reliable sources message board will sort out if the book or the sources you cite are valid or none of them. My proposal for the book would solve everything. Unless you already know what the answer is. You admit to owning it....William 19:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"My proposal for the book would solve everything": not in the slightest, as several people have explained. Sadly you seem to be in WP:ICANTHEARYOU mode. Never mind. Please read the book and visit the talk page once again, at which point everyone else will once again explain top you there is no connection between the two fictional works, while there is a connection between the film, and several academic sources which specifically examine the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUND Smart! SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Checking to see if you are going to canvass the same user once again to come to your support isn't hounding - so the accusation is slightly less smart! - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should let an Administrator decide that. As well as if WP: Civility has been violated on the LTK talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No stalking, for the last time

Given your promise to stalk me, and the numerous links I have provided in the past, the next time I notice that you're continuing to stalk me, I will request an extended block for stalking me, per the "Wikihounding" section of the WP:HA policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Take it to ANI or resign as an administrator due to your paranoia and continuing baloney accusations against me and your clearly forgetting what Sphilbrick said over a year ago about my checking on any administrator. Don't forget your baloney accusation and twisting of what happened in Jan 2014 into something it wasn't[1]. Your lack of competence shows again when you removed the Marathon Classic from the Sylvania, Ohio article without bothering to check such an event existed. Plus its notable people not notable natives or residents. A competent editor who works on US city articles would know that Project consensus is Notable people or Notable person. I can point out probably a hundred cases of my rightly naming those sections. Don't forget all those editors you wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry. How many 20, 25? And the basis for it was not their editing but they being greeted by a blocked/banned editor. That disgraceful episode should have led to you and the other administrators involved all being stripped of your tools.

FYI I put a TB on Sphilbrick's talk page. Resign as administrator so others don't have to waste time on you....William 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

First, some general comments:

I am mildly surprised we do not see more issues at ANI or ARBCOM regarding harassment. It is quite appropriate that the community prohibits harassment. However, some actions which will be viewed by others as harassment are actually quite legitimate. For example, I try to spend some time addressing copyright problems. It is not uncommon to find that an editor who has abused copyright on one article has done so on other articles. In these situations, it is often necessary to look at the other contributions of an editor. From the point of view of the editor, who often doesn't think they are in violation of copyright rules at all, the sudden addition of several edits to a talk page by a single editor each alleging a violation policy may look like harassment.

The same can occur if an editor engages in or is accused of engaging in personal attacks. It is often appropriate to take a look at many of the editor's edits to see if the recent incident is a one-off situation or part of a pattern. This can be even more likely to lead to an issue, as almost by definition the editor might be in a foul mood, and suddenly someone is questioning them about many of their edits.

On the other hand, sometimes an editor will have a run in with another editor, and decide to retaliate by reviewing the other editors edits to look for anything which could be questioned. This can become stalking or wiki hounding and is unacceptable, but distinguishing the acceptable actions from the not just acceptable but necessary actions can be tricky.

We cannot simply create a rule that says it's okay if an admin does it but not if others do. We have a lot of admins doing a lot of legitimate work, but on some occasions, admins, who are people too, do go overboard. While we do have ARBCOM and ANI, it is my opinion that they should be reserved for situations that cannot be resolved by the respective parties. I think it is quite appropriate for editors to pay attention to what admins are doing, and that may include inspecting each of their edits.

Now, more specific comments:

Nyttend, I agree with WilliamJE that it would've been easy to drop "marathon classic" into the search box and immediately see that there was an article which would lead to wiki linking rather than removal. I think it was in honest mistake and, trying to imagine how I would handle it, I can't say for certain whether I would've handled it properly. On the other hand, William you went on at length about using "notable people" rather than "notable residents". I briefly checked the edit history and I don't think it was Nyttend who instered that term. If you simply meant that he should have affirmatively changed it, I think that's asking too much.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that William has substantial experience with articles about places and have no problem with him monitoring the edits in these types of articles, even ones he may not have edited before. I don't think that constitutes stalking, although, as noted before, I understand how you could look that way. I also think that, when we accept the admin bit, we also have to accept that we may be under special scrutiny from some editors. That just goes with the territory and is probably good for the project. (I did not look into the sock puppetry issue and do not plan to.)

On a positive note, I have specifically encouraged William to contact me anytime he find something that he considers admin abuse. I am happy to note in his been quite some time since he last contacted me. That's good news. I hope that we can drop this minor incident and just move on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Very good, but my warning stands: the next incident of stalking will result in a request for sustained sanctions for such, unless it's reasonable that WilliamJE monitors Rorke's Drift, minor train stations, and ANI threads in which I'm a minor participant. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thank you for taking the time to reply. The ANI thread that led to Nyttend blocking over 20 editors wrongly for sockpuppetry can be found here[2] and by checking his contributions with the filter User Talk.

Nyttend also threatened me[3] a few months back with these words- "Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me." The bold part is totally untrue[4] and Nyttend knows it.

As for Nyttend

1- One of my hobbies is reading military history. Earlier this year I completed Nigel Hamilton's 3 volume biography of Field Marshall Montgomery. While I was reading, I incorporated things I read into Wikipedia articles on Dai Rees, Brian Horrocks and others. My cleaning up See also sections predates me and you ever having any business.

2- I sometimes edit railroad station (I know I've done at least a couple on Thailand ones in the last 10 days. You didn't create those) articles especially if they are lacking establishment or disestablishment categories.

3- That ANI thread you edited twice and blocked 21 accounts by your own math due to it. Which were overturned in each case. That these blocks were done on flimsy evidence and at the same time permanently staining each user's account history was as I said appalling. Stronger adjectives, disgraceful being just one, are actually more fitting for what you and any other administrator did in those wrong blocks.

If you ever try making another false stalking accusation against me, look out yourself. I will point out every threat you have made towards me for any justified criticism I've made against you, plus the case[5] of you threatening me for supposedly making administrators do wrongful deletions. Please explain to SP how I was supposed to do that. The article was a cut and paste job, you didn't do your homework, just like with Marathon Classic in Sylvania Ohio, and for a while there were two articles on the same subject because of your actions.

Your posts to my talk page have more often than not been bad jokes....William 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't overdo the prod tags

"It's unreferenced" isn't a good reason to prod tag an article, just saying. Please do at least a minimal amount of searching to verify, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid reason for Proding. The article has to assert notability. It can't be done without reference(s). There are quite a few of these articles, and some plus others are in need of updating....William 15:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the need for updating, but that's an eternal problem... hey, only 9000+ articles in WP horse racing and maybe five active members here. But my understanding of WP:PROD is "uncontroversial deletion... with a valid reason for deletion..." - and WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." At least do a Google search or check out The Blood-Horse or something. I agree there is probably a lot of cruft in there, but there are also a lot of stubs created by people unfamiliar with how things are done - and a lot of older stubs. Lack of refs ≠ lack of notability; just means amateur editor, or old article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cork Airport

Hiya. I see that you made a change to the Cork Airport page again. Perhaps you missed it, but I had opened a thread to discuss that topic on the relevant talk page a week or so ago. It really would probably be a good idea to discuss any concerns you have there. I would note that, as per my comments a few weeks ago, I'm not seeing the project concensus (implied in your various edit summaries) that ground-side or runway incidents are not relevant to an "incidents" section. (As per my talk-page note, a significant number of other airport articles deal with these type of incidents in that type of section.) Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please....

Please stop harrassing me and treating me like a baby! You are doing this to annoy me now and make me remove comments on my talk page so you will eventually try and get me blocked!!!!! Please!!! RMS52 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am no harrassing you and you're the only person who can get yourself blocked. Your talk page is your own property as long as you don't edit what another author writes. Remove it entirely or leave it alone entirely Your edits here[6] and here[7] to Gatwick Airport amount to vandalism. You removed references, proper material and even photographs.

Can't you see a bomb not going off isn't the same as a airliner crashing. The airports have history sections, the Garda attack or a unexploded bomb can go in there. Calm down and think....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly doing this on purpose!!! Just reply at my disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS please if you want to reach an actual consensus, you just want to be right. I get it now.... RMS52 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations WilliamJE, you destroy the passion of a poor user (RMS52). The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He quit Wikipedia and I had nothing to do with it. It was his decision. RMS was clearly out of control, as seen by his vandalism edits to Gatwick Airport. I didn't make RMS do those. An editor who fails to understand a whole range of Wikipedia policies isn't a asset to this community....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the edits in LGW and I think that RMS52 had a little vandalize act. But other of this I think that you could be less bad and less offensive.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me offer my best good faith advice to you.

I think our interaction in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics was our first.

Please let me offer my best good faith advice to you.

You cited the outcome of 2022 Ryder Cup. I looked at the AFD. You initiated it. There is nothing wrong with choosing a subset of related topics, and focusing on them. But here is something I suggest you reconsider -- namely using the same cookie-cutter nomination for articles that are at very different stages of development.

I suggest other readers really need to know when you consider a future big sporting event well enough documented to merit a stand-alone article. Why wasn't your dividing line spelled out in your nomination(s)? Why wouldn't you spell out where you draw the line, when you were specifically asked to do so?

Another suggestion, if, after reconsidering your nomination of 2021 World Championships in Athletics, you now think you had a momentary episode of tunnel vision, and went too far, it would be an excellent choice for you to go back to that AFD and (1) own up to changing your mined; (2) withdraw your nomination; (3) optional -- state your new dividing line.

Many of us respect someone who can admit a mistake. It would certainly be best for the project if everyone admitted their mistakes.

OMG the irony. @Geo Swan: can't admit a clear mistake but a wants another editor to admit what he thinks is a mistake. I should make this a permanent example on either this or my user page. While you're at it, read WP:TPO. Which reads- It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. At present I'm not very optimistic about an admission of mistake being forthcoming....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In your reply you wrote: "First of all don't violate WP:CIVIL at AFD." I dispute I lapsed from CIVIL. Simple disagreement is not a breach of civility. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can't understand that saying 'over-ethusiastic deletionist' isn't namecalling and a violation of CIVIL then whatever else you may have to say is probably a waste of time. Namecalling and then refusing to fess up to it says plenty....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTHERE

Please stop making personal attacks of this kind [8]. NOTHERE is an absurd accusation to make, and appears to have been made in bad faith in support of a continuing grudge. The incident with the blocking of purported sockpuppets was an honest mistake made by Bishonen, upon which Nyttend acted in good faith. I was also involved, and unblocked most of them once it became apparent that it was a set-up by a long-term abuse account. People set such traps for us from time to time. The incident was discussed and resolved at ANI.

As for the rest of your accusations, I've read Sphilbrick's discussion and agree with most of it (including the need for admins to have to put up with a certain amount of extra criticism), but I see a recurring pattern of enmity. Your userpage is exhibit A, and looks like parts of it are straightforward violations of WP:POLEMIC. I've also read Orlady's comment that you quoted, and I don't think it means precisely what you think it does. However, once again, personal attacks are a problematic pattern for you. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of a comment on my talk page

I left a ping on my talk page but I'll briefly summarize here. I think both you and Nyttend are valuable contributors. I wish there were a magic way we can keep you from running into each other, as you are both improving the encyclopedia. I do understand why you are not happy with Nyttend; you know in a recent dustup I supported your position. That said, Nyttend is a real live human being, and I think it is unfair for your vituperation to remain so prominently on your user page. I believe it is against policy but I don't want you to remove it because it's against policy I want to remove it because it's the right thing to do. Save it off line if you need to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Since a decent interval has passed in which you could have acted on the requests from myself and Sphilbrick, I've removed what Sprilbrick rightly describes as vituperation from your userpage. Userpages are not safe harbors on which one may advertise and feed old grudges, and that section was a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Please do not reinstate it. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015

Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!

• • USRD through the years
• • A goal for success
• • From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon

• • Article assessment over time
• • How to measure a WikiProject's load
• • Conflict over article titles

• • Arbitration case closes
• • Collaboration
• • Our valued contributors

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)