I would be hard pressed to find references but I or anyone else could find examples within Wikipedia of the problamatic use of acronyms. Correcting or reverting those would not be "nice". Raining on someones parade is not generally taken well. I prefer to be vague and just to say that it happens rather that to call someone out on it. I can't think of a positive result of making a more obscure term out of a longer one on except where brevity is an advantage like not enough room on the line to spell things out. A thing is not made notable when there is an acronym for it. There are a lot of requests in Wikipedia for making articles less technical and more understandable. A good way of doing that would be to discourage the use of obscure acronyms. Reknihtdivad (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's difficult as when something is 'widely believed' it might not be written down but it's very important as it speaks to the quality and bias of the content produced by the individual.
Regarding not attending games, again this speaks to the authenticity of the content. Di Cesare has a live watchalong of every Manchester United match so by definition does not attend the games. I'm not sure how to reference that but it is self-evident. Perhaps you could reference the YouTube channel itself.
You have to understand that there is a very large and loyal fan base of the club that goes to games, has supported through thick and thin through childhood and genuinely cares about the club. In the real Manchester United fan community, Di Cesare is almost universally seen as somebody that is exploiting the club for profit on his channel/s by being overly sensationalistic, negative and defamatory about both how the club is ran and real supporters, and I believe it is important to capture that. He has been banned from United press conferences for inflammatory rhetoric. 2A0A:EF40:2F8:8C01:5827:D70F:3E62:98D5 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the link provided redirects me (based on my location it seems) to a different edition. I can select the UK edition from there, but then I'm at a generic current news page, and I don't see a search function where I can look for "Goldbridge". You would need a source to comment on how game attendance speaks to authenticity; otherwise it's original research. You would also need a source for "[...] almost universally seen as somebody [...] exploiting the club [...]". It seems like much of what you want to add is personal knowledge or analysis, and Wikipedia needs reliable sources. It's not that Wikipedia thinks you are wrong, or are lying; it's just that you need to help Wikipedia vouch for your edit. Sorry, but that's the way it works. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so I will sort the first link. Regarding a source to link authenticity and attendance, I don't want the article to mention that, it's just common sense and people can draw that conclusion if they wish. If I find a source that shows he does not attend then that would be correctly referenced, right? The last part was just some context for you, I don't want to include it either 2A0A:EF40:2F8:8C01:5827:D70F:3E62:98D5 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source that shows he doesn't attend games isn't necessarily worth anything. As a layman not familiar with the coverage Goldbridge provides as a YouTuber, I would probably assume it just means he's not set up to provide live coverage on-site, rather than in a studio. A reliable source that says he doesn't attend games, and comments that it means something, lends the content some notability. What you really need is a reliable source that provides commentary supporting what you want to add. The content is ultimately opinion, but like a respected movie critic, a regarded sports critic or commentator can be a valid source for those sort of additions. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bro i agree his talk page is an outright lie “avoid editing wars” also bro is agressive wolf lol he thinks he is the king of wikepedia how do you block a person from edit8nf Happymappy12342 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to the Homelessness Page
Hi there, I wanted to reach out to you about the reversal of my edits. You see I was doing this edit for a course grade. While I know that you view it as original research I did cite the textbook that I used when making this addition. I have never made edits to this page and was only doing it for the course. I totally understand your call to take it down and do not want an editing "war", however, I want to let you know that the words were basically from the professors mouth and the textbook to the page and not just something I came up with on a whim. It would be great to see this edit put back but I do know that that's not very common on these types of websites. Anyways, Id love feedback that is actually constructive so that the next assignment I do you leave my edits as they are. Thanks! Kendallryan02 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the words were basically from the professors mouth and the textbook: I didn't see any word-for-word copying from the source, which is good; it's important not to violate copyright
I had a problem with the tone, which was didactic: e.g. "in order to better understand", "important to note", "important to remember", "important to highlight". "Wikipedia voice" should be a rather dry reporting of what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject, and should not attempt to tell the reader what it is important to know.
The content suggested a context far wider than the article itself. Many researchers have studied homelessness as a whole [...] would seem to introduce a whole tutorial in itself, not an addition of a few facts to the article. Much of the content is devoted to defining and illustrating "intermediaries", which should be beyond the scope of a small addition to the article.
As an editor working on a course assignment, your goals will often intersect with Wikipedia's, but sometimes they will not. Sometimes an instructor will assign a task which is not compatible with Wikipedia, especially if it views Wikipedia as a whiteboard for accomplishing educational goals. Every edit to the articles is "live", and expected to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia's purpose. There is a resource at Wikipedia:Education program which gives guidance to constructing assignments that avoid conflicting with Wikipedia's goals and methods.
Rather than trying to shoe-horn a mini-essay into the article, you would improve Wikipedia by adding forms of discrimination which contribute to homelessness, or perhaps reporting on the impact various forms have, or what mitigating efforts have been tried. I hope you haven't been assigned a project that will be impossible to complete while meeting Wikipedia's goals as well. I wish you the best in your future endeavours. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my special yo-yos section
What happened to my special yo-yos section? Its gone. I am going to try and cite more sources but I read about the Nine Dragons Yo-Yo on YoYofactory.com. I heard about the Synergy yo-yo on a YouTube video made by Brandon Vu that was about his yo-yo collection; he mentioned the Synergy yo-yo. On that same video he said "The Synergy yo-yo is basically an earlier version of the YoYoFactory Nine Dragons yo-yo."
Please tell me how I can publish the special yo-yos section without it getting deleted.
Sincerely,
SushiLover12345
SushiLover12345 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find reliable secondary sources that support the information you want to provide. A secondary source would be one independent of the yoyo itself. It's no good if the Acme YoyoCo says their yoyos are "special". My Mom says I'm special. It's better if this conversation is held in one place, at the Yo-yo talk page. That way, people that are interested in the yo-yo article and might be able to help will see it. Helpful editors aren't likely to come across the issue on my talk page here. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reliable secondary source about yo-yos IS yoyofactory.com. They offer a detailed description about their yoyos. ALSO I added a link to the Nine dragons Yo-Yo . after the words, "YoYofactory Nine Dragons" in my edit, there is a small [40] which is a link to the reliable secondary source of the Nine dragons Yo-Yo.
This is the final message that I will send about this issue on your talk page. After you reply to me, we will continue this discussion on the yoyo talk page.
WILLONDON STOP DELETING MY EDITS TELL ME WHY YOU ARE IN AN HOUR OR IM DELETING MY WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNT AND NEVER USING WIKIPEDIA AGAIN IM BEING DRIVEN CRAZY WITH YOUR ANTICS SushiLover12345 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TELL ME WHY YOU ARE IN AN HOUR Editors are not required to respond on any sort of time-frame or deadline; you're just in luck that I happen to be logged in now. I assume reference to this edit here [3]. The edit summary says "inadequately sourced (YouTube); needs a reliable secondary source to establish what is "weird". You can see at WP:RSPYT that YouTube is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. At Wikipedia:No original research, you can see that personal knowledge or analysis is not accepted, either. To describe a yo-yo as "weird", and treat "weird" as a type of yo-yo, you need a reliable secondary source that says so. I hope you appreciate the time I'm taking to respond, considering that I apparently had the power to shut you down just by waiting out an hour without responding. If being reverted because your edits don't conform to the way Wikipedia does things is driving you crazy, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WILINDON, stop deleting the history part of the CPS page
Please stop removing the history of CPS, you most Likley don't even go to this school, meaning that this is none of your business, there is absolutely no reason to delete it, wikepedia WANTS us to expand pages to please stop Happymappy12342 (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care, you don't go to carlisle school, for the last time THE PAGE IS NONE OF YOUR FREAKING BUISSNESS LEAVE THE PAGE AS IT IS WILLY BILLY WIL WIL DONN Happymappy123 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
stop vandalizing Sourced information on Atama and Editan without proper citation, if this persist, you might be blocked from this space. Akpako (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idiot sock
Have already reported this garbage vandal here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla#Idiot_sock; lowlife has the nerve to defend themselves in their talkpage, i refuse to drop my two cents there because this individual does not merit one ounce of my wiki-time!). Still today, i will reply to you regarding the Jordi Amat (footballer) article.
I suppose you will be notified here because i clicked the option "reply" at my talk page, but mention nonetheless that i have replied to your pertinent query there. --RevampedEditor (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry Dash xo
You reverted my edits after i was adding a true thing. you also posted about it like you did something i was factually correct and adding another form of entertainment. BidGic (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your response. I've been curious for a while (though not curious enough to set up an IMDb account). A while back there were a few different "producers" that were inserting themselves into articles. I would sometimes check IMDb as a step to verfying. On a couple of occasions, I happened to see that the producer was not listed on the IMDb projects cited, and then the next day they were. Hmmm. I wondered if there was a way, like with Wikipedia, to see who added what and when. Thanks again for the reply. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I decided to revert the edits [4]. The main reason is that no source was provided for the content (see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to add sources). Another reason was "peacock language" (see WP:PUFFERY) such as "rich history", "remarkable journey", etc. In looking for a source, the most obvious place would be the school itself. As a primary source, it's not ideal, but not wholly objectionable. The important thing if you draw on those resources is to not violate copyright by copying word for word. You need to put those things in your own words. Hope that helps. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you didn't provide a link to the source along with your addition (see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do that). If you decide to add it again (with source, of course), don't repeat the actual warning text in the article. That's not necessary. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could have done your research yourself on this and added it to the article as the LEW is still in effect, but you did not. Also, there should at least be an example of the warning, as shown from the many others that were listed. Strawblarri (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion that there are already enough examples is not a strong one; I respect other editors' opinions there. You will have to provide sources for additions, and the onus is on you for that. If you want to add that information again with a source, I can help with any loose ends that need tied up. Happy editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Willondon, I'm here to ask a question regarding the articles source. for some reason, the website that linked the example and that I used as the source completely cleared the page, basically making the source unusable. is there any other way me or you could restore the original source? ex: way back machine, etc. thanks! Strawblarri (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's what the page looked like when I checked it. It seemed odd to use as a source, but I figured you can tell it's from the National Weather Service, and though empty, states it's a Law Enforcement Warning. I know things like the wayback machine and Internet archives keep copies, but I'm not familiar with what they cover, or how to work them. Since the article is a stub in need of development, I think demands on sourcing can be a little relaxed. The two main things a reliable secondary source does are (1) verify that it is a fact, (2) support that it is something worthy of note. The current sourcing doesn't do the second one, but I think it covers the first. Better sourcing might come from news coverage of LEW's launch, or if/when it expanded to include weather events, or a source detailing what the LEW is, and what it covers. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume reference to my edit here [6]. Now that I look, I see it was my mistake. Sorry that you had to spend time fixing it. I may have been triggered by the unexplained change of the date on the {{Use dmy dates}} template from Nov 2024 back to Nov 2020. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I thought it was a TRUTH edit; sorry for the accusation. (There are editors who exaggerate the populations of their favoured languages.)
I'm not that familiar with those templates, but I understand the date should represent the last time the article was checked for that condition; so logically, it shouldn't regress. The article seems to be in a good place now. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how does Wikipedia not detect you as vandalism? don’t make a Wikipedia account if all you do is delete real add on stuff, Wikipedia is about editing and adding stuff, your just deleting stuff and calling it VaNdAlIsM Happymappy12342 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let these people get to you. There's a quite obvious thing they are trying to do. I came to your talk page to thank you for your edits, then I saw this. Don't feed the trolls. Keep doing great work! Dillard421♂♂(talk to me)23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of edits for no reason
(moved to the proper location)
bro i agree his talk page is an outright lie “avoid editing wars” also bro is agressive wolf lol he thinks he is the king of wikepedia how do you block a person from edit8nf Happymappy12342 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing my edits?, we hate each-other now bc your reversing the edits of my school page? its my school they gave me permission and they will block you, stop. Happymappy12342 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the film again. There are two parking lot scenes. The first is when Carl steals license plates to put on the Cierra. This is when he encounters the attendant -- who is NOT killed. Johnadams11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that. I thought you didn't know that. I was confused by your comment when you removed it ("Deleted erroneous scene description. The parking lot attendant scene is earlier (and the attendant is unharmed)." [7]). Why did you say "the parking lot scene", then? And you seemed to imply that only one attendant was encountered, "the attendant", and he was left unharmed (true for the first attendant, but not so much for the second one). signed, Willondon (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. My edit comments assume that the reader has reviewed the edit. I see you're a very experienced editor. Should I be sure that my edit comments are comprehensive so as not to require the reader to look at the edit?Johnadams11 (talk) Johnadams11 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would add too that I believe that some of (my) confusion is that the death of parking attendant number two is off camera, and it would not have been my inclination to include this (non essential) idea in a WP plot summary. Johnadams11 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His death is still displayed, even if it happened off camera. I agree, though, that the killing of the second attendant could be considered an unnecessary detail for the plot. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello Willondon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are about the sequence. I made another revision to reflect that. Note: these discussions are better discussed on the article talk page, so that future editors have easy access to the conversation. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever added an image. A good starting point would be Wikipedia:Images. I know that the images must be drawn from the Wikipedia Commons (another area I'm not that famililar with). So, you have to upload the image to the commons first. The complicated part is making sure the image is properly licensed, so that copyright is not violated, etc. About that, you'd need to find an expert at the Teahouse: a good resource for any general question about editing Wikipedia. Happy editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very probably. A screen shot is a "derivative work", protected as much as the original. The way copyright works, any original creation (book, photo, film, recording, etc.) is protected as soon as it is put down in a tangible form. So any original work that exists should be assumed to be protected under copyright, including "derivative works", like a screen shot. Currently, the creator does not have to register the copyright or declare it with "(C) Acme Creations 1987" for it to be protected (although failure to do so can limit the amount of damages that can be claimed). So if the work/image is free to use and copy, it's because: (1) copyright was not claimed and the work was created in the days when that was a requirement, (2) the copyright has expired, (3) the owner of the copyright has explicitly placed it under a license that allows it, or has explicity released it to the public domain. Mind you, I'm not a copyright expert, but I'd love to play one on television. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made by me on Saud Abdulhamid are right and not vandalism. He played 3 games in Serie A and didn't score any goals. Only appearances in the championship (Serie A) are counted there and not those in other competitions. Alealyjang (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit I reverted [8], you changed the goal3 parameter from "1" to "0", and you didn't explain why. My edit summary did not say "vandalism", it said "unsourced, unexplained reduction in goal total". A good edit summary for you would have been "only appearances in championship (Serie A) counted here". As an editor unfamiliar with the topic, I thought how can a goal total go backwards? So, I asked for an explanation. This is why I also suggested you add edit summmaries to your edits [9]. They go a long way toward avoiding confusion as to why the change was made. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
