User talk:WilliamJE

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.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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?

Sorry, you're absolutely right - I accidentally misrepresented what you accused him of. I apologize for the mistake and bringing up Nyttend on your talk page.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

—Cryptic 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WilliamJE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Cryptic blocks me without warning and without even a edit summary for reverting a violation of wikipedia policy. Never encountered him before and he has supplied zero proof of any disruptive behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After Cryptic's comment above, I have unblocked. WilliamJE, if you wish to contest the close on policy grounds after being reverted, I suggest you bring it up at an appropriate forum for discussion/clarification. And a reminder to all that a block is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort - talking should be the first move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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:

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)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはWilliamJEたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

WilliamJE,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Sinking of the RMS Lusitania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Hohum ^@) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:BRD. Also, for the third time: WP:NOTABILITY and everything else you have referenced is for notability requirements for making a whole article on a subject, not just *mentioning* it in an existing article. Please revert your change and take it to the article talk page. (Hohum ^@) 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No reference to any of this? Put these names in any community article they will get removed on that basis alone. WHat is the basis of their notability? Just that they are related to somebody famous. They doesn't make THEM notable. If they had an article on only that basis, it would be deleted per NOTINHERITED. You have to prove their notability. There is none at the present....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Death of Kobe Bryant

Hi WilliamJE, I was considering removing the names of non notable persons from the article and would like your thoughts on this. - Samf4u (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Samf4u: I don't think non notable names should be in aviation accident articles. Personally I have stayed away from Kobe Bryant stuff. Here's my reasoning-
  • 1- That article is going to be a magnet for both experienced and inexperienced editors for some time. People aren't going to like the consensus for not naming people in aviation accident articles. So some drama (I just got dragged to ANI[11] over Galaxy Airlines Flight 203) is going to result. I think it is best to let things settle down before trying to take the names out.
  • 2-The article is Death of Kobe Bryant at the moment. If it gets renamed to something reflecting its clearly being a aviation accident article, then I think the time would be better for taking the names out. BTW I think the article should be renamed.
• There is some other point that I was going to make but it is slipping my mind at the moment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, While removing the names is the right thing to do and we have a consensus to do so, I think it would ignite a firestorm of arguing at this time. Agree with name change and just posted on the articles talk page. Also, I did follow that ridiculous thread at ANI, the original poster is really a piece of work. Thanks much! - Samf4u (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I didn't mean to do this. Interstellarity (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mistakes happen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Signature

I see at the top of this page that you say you know your sig is confusing. If you know it is confusing, you should change it, it also is going aginst WP:SIGLEN and makes it hard to see who is talking. I had to look at the page history to see who made the edit as it looked to be unsigned. You can set somthing up so that way only YOU will see the "the complaint department" part. How to do it is shown at WP:SIGLEN as well. You liking it is not a resaon to have a sig that is highly confusing. Thank You. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been my signature a long time. Please follow my directions to the complaint department....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE,... the roof link led here, so I am in the right place. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, im trying to resolve this without going to the drama boards. and that commet you made would be consider rude as well. "I like it" and "his has been my signature a long time" are dumb reasons, it took me a good five minuts to find out that it was you who filled something to ANI about Xray. because it looked like you only did the timestamp. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Take it to the drama boards if you want. Somebody is sure to tell you to stop wasting their time. End of subject....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

William, I don't want this (please read it) to happen to you. More and more editors are criticizing your signature. If that results in a community consensus (as in the above case), I hope that you will graciously implement a change. starship.paint (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

a proposal has been opened reagarding your sig

It can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=941456417 perm link for archival reasons LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• William, you can see where this is going. We can avert that disaster, together:

• ...William (is the complaint department really on the roof?)
• ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
• ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
• ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?
• ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

• You can pick a favourite colour if you don't like that green above. Let's get you out of this hole. Not all of us want to lynch you, otherwise they wouldn't have provided suggestions like the above. starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi William. You and I have never interacted directly, but we have commented at the same discussions once or twice, and I have to confess that I have found your signature confusing - far more so than any of the other ones mentioned in the AN thread - because, as Ivanvector noted, it simply doesn't look like a sig. There is a clear consensus at AN that you should change it to something more obviously resembling a signature, or be blocked. I don't think blocking you would benefit the project; I also don't think that ignoring the concerns of numerous other editors benefits the project. The easiest way out of the woods seems to me that you should just change it, so that it's obviously a sig. STARSHIP has presented some pretty cool options above - why not just pick one of them and walk away from this? GirthSummit _(blether) 02:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just normalize your damned signature and let's get on with life. This is idiotic. Don't let Team Bozo kneecap you. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Allow me to add my voice to those above who are imploring you to change your signature. I'm honestly surprised by the fact that so many others find it confusing, but apparently they do and this isn't a hill worth dying on. If it makes you feel any better, I doubt that most of those commenting at AN have it in for you personally. Lepricavark (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Liking your own signature and having it for a long time are damn solid reasons to want to keep it. Don't let the chorus convince you you're digging your grave by trying to continue normally. It may be a valid problem, but it's their valid problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with liking your signature, but editors should remember the primary purpose for signatures is to aide collaboration. If it gets in the way of that it becomes a problem, not just for everyone on Wikipedia, including of course the editor causing the problem. Depending on the circumstances, it may not be blockable in and of itself. But editors who keep keep doing stuff which they are aware is harming collaboration, and which they can easily resolve, are eventually going to find themselves blocked. I personally thhink the signature was dumb but not confusing, but it's clear other editors genuinely find it confusing. I didn't offer much comment on the issue on the AN since it didn't seem to be the right place as I was unconvinced the signature was a big enough a problem for a block in and of itself. But unlike others, I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting (not hoping!) that an editor who is harmful to collaboration is eventually blocked. The primary reason is not because of lynch mobs, or people carrying a grudge, but all to do with the fact that ultimately we are here to work together. And so editors who keep doing stuff which causes problems for that when they can easily not do so, are eventually going to be seen as a net negative. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Today I had to defend myself[12] from an editor who lied(My user page doesn't link to my books or my business and never has. First mention of any published book is April 2014. You can check) at ANI[13] about my USER page and compared me[14] to people who commit felonies. The same editor says 'Wikipedia's image hosting,[15] are abused as a personal family photo album'. One photo of myself, which is used at Gerald Barbarito is somehow abuse. What's should the penalty be for lying and being irrational at ANI? Maybe @Smuckola: can opine on it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can promise you that the userpage criticisms will amount to nothing as anyone can see that they are inaccurate. I agree that the DUI remark was very inappropriate, but it really would help if you would take a deep breath and keep your cool. I realize that you've been under an unpleasant amount of scrutiny of late, but responding angrily only gives more ammunition to your critics. (Also, I think you'll find that the Team Bozo remark referenced below came from Carrite, who regrettably is not an admin). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's lies and other crap comes just days after another group of editors (Called Team Bozo by administrator here[16]) tried to get me blocked for absolutely no violation of WP policy. That's a great example of people together around here, isn't it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Closed

As you dont seem to be redading the thread anymore, I think it is right to let you know has now been closed by User:Floquenbeam. You will be happy to know that you will not be blocked but I would advise you to read the closing comment. I hope this drama is all finaly over. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• (sorry, got pulled away by real life for a few minutes) I've closed the AN thread. That couldn't have been fun. However, if you wade through all the bad feelings and ulterior motives, there are still a whole lot of people who are not your "enemies" who are genuinely bothered by your signature. Please consider following Starship.paint's advice; any of those minor changes would be all that's needed to make 90% of people's concerns go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• • @Floquenbeam: There was no need for you to say sorry. Your ping was sufficient for telling me the thread was closed.
  • @DBigXray: and @SharabSalam: Under no circumstances are either of you to ping me again or post to this talk page. It will be considered harassment if you do. That specifically includes this very thread also.
  • That discussion was retaliation for my taking Xray to ANI[17] over their harassment of two editors.
  • I've stood up for other editors around here who I felt were wrongly treated. @Niteshift36: and @Joefromrandb:. That's a practice I am not going to stop doing. That would be rewarding Xray and Sharab.
  • Also I am not changing my signature to satisfy a lynch mob or as @Carrite: termed them 'Team Bozo'. It would be rewarding the wrong people. An indefinite block for my signature. If it wasn't retaliation, there are some sick minds (And sycophants out there to unthinkingly follow them) out there because what else can you call that form of disproportionate justice thinking. Remember the saying- The penalty should suit the crime? What crime? My signature isn't against any WP policy.

That's all folks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Damned small molehill to choose to die on. Talk about rewarding the wrong people... Carrite (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Oops, my bad, hopefully. -tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Carrite ? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Carrite may have mistakenly thought the thread at WP:AN was still open....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I thought you self-immolated rather than dusting the unconventional talk page link from your sig. Glad you did not. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody self-immolates over something this minor, that's just positive spin from the flamethrower crowd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

William, I am disappointed on your decision. Yet, what’s important for you is not what I feel, but that this will be used against you in the future. I’m sure your stubbornness and hostility will come back to bite you again, and on these points, it will most likely be beyond my ability to help. These points have already been raised at WP:AN. I can only hope you avoid conflicts, because every conflict is a step closer to sanctions. On the other hand, if you perform a simple bolding, to satisfy neutral editors (say like Girth Summit), now, we have positive evidence of your ability to change. I'd say that’s a win-win for you, you help yourself, you help neutral editors, and why care about the ‘bad guys’? Just ignore them. starship.paint (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I agree with this 100%, I do not want to see this to come back to bite him, and William, I greatly apologize for how I was acting, I could have remained more calm during this whole thing while still getting across the same point, I hope you accept my apology.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)