User talk:Willondon/Archives/2024 Jan - Feb

Brenda Schad

I included the runways,campaigns and magazines she has done and there are photo evidence.

the photographers that she has worked with have photo evidence and has been confirmed by both parties and also she did co founded with her friend on there brand tribe of two. And she also did work for elite model management because of it says on LinkedIn. Misshadid (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this revert here [1]. Please see the guidance at WP:SECONDARY to see why secondary sources are often required. With the photographs, magazines, etc. (none of which you have actually offered sources for), yes, there is evidence of facts, but the job of the secondary source is to sort out what's noteworthy, and provide some summary insight. Not everything that is true needs to be in an encyclopedia. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Willondon Go type in Brenda Schad bellazon and see for ur self. Misshadid (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Willondon Go on Brenda Schad Instagram Misshadid (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept any homework assignment to search the web for anything. Did you read what I recommended at WP:SECONDARY? If you want an edit of yours to stick, without getting reverted, it's up to you to provide a reliable, secondary source that supports that the information is notable and true. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I think should accept this “homework assignment” as you deleting information which is well known when go on Brenda Schad bellazon I recommend you start from page 10 to page 21. Misshadid (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If you've read the guidance at WP:SECONDARY, how do you think it intersects with the edits you want to make? I'm not the one who has to do homework here. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I read it but I don’t understand it Misshadid (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The things I would like you to understand from there are:

• Photographs, magazines, lists, etc. can prove that something is true, but
• Not everything that is a fact should be included here
• Secondary sources, sources not close to the subject, act as a filter for what facts are notable
• If a secondary source hasn't made note of it, it might not be notable, and shouldn't be here.

I don't think I can help you beyond that. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism

Thanks for reverting on Temptations 60. Please also see Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B002:64E3:0:2C:30D1:BE01, where I think this person made a few more sneaky vandalism edits. If you can, please undo those as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm working away at it (multi-tasking). I wouldn't necessarily call it vandalism. Adding and changing things without a source. But that is characteristic of what I call "fiddle vandalism". I was led to the edits from WP:AIV, but I didn't see any warnings on their talk page, so I don't know what will become of that report. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tom Donegan

Most of the data ref my fathers football career are wrong, so I attempted to give the correct details and you removed them? 82.3.211.23 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved this conversation over to the article's talk page at Accuracy of information. It's a matter of finding the sources, so on the article talk page, it's more likely to attract others that might have some input.

(A side note: I assume you were referring to edits made under the username Buddiemarvellous. You should always log in to use your account. I see this as an innocent oversight, but other editors may become suspicious, and see IP edits and Account edits from the same person as an attempt to deceive people into thinking more than one shares an opinion.)

(Uh, oh. Checking out the article's history, I see edits such as [2] from Martin0408 indicating "Edited by his son". Going forward, you need to edit with a consistent account name (the recent Buddiemarvellous is probably best). Otherwise, you are likely to be seen as abusing multiple accounts to game the system.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Popular music date changing IPs

Those are socks of long term vandal User:MakaveliReed, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed. They're usually VPNs or web hosts. Warning them is a waste of time, they never respond to talk page comments. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In most cases (don't tell my secret), I'm not leaving the warning expecting that the IP will read it and stop, I'm leaving them so that if it comes to AIV, everything's all cued up for an admin to make an easy judgement that they're comfortable they can justify. I notice 185.220.250.14 does seem to have stopped (on that IP, anyway). What do you recommend to help put a stop to the vandalism, apart from the traditional warn, warn, report? Thanks for all your anti-vandal efforts. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is such an obvious pattern that I usually just send them to AIV straight away with a link to the LTA case. This one will pause a bit and cycle IPs until he's helped us find all the open proxies. MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. I haven't approached it that way before. Thanks for the LTA link I can use. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why?

Is there a reason you keep removing the "Programs" section of the St. Mark's School page? If you are unhappy with the additions I've made, maybe just edit those instead of removing the entire section, which has been active for years without problem? Hawthorne72 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have left some of your edits alone, ones outside the "Programs" section. I try to be surgical about such things, but the entire section should not be there. My edit summary said unsource ("offers several unique programs"), and primary sourced list. By that I meant the statement "offers several unique programs" was unsourced; who says that, the school? Wikipedia requires reliable secondary' sources to support statements, and to establish notability. And the list of programs is sourced to the school itself (primary), which may attest to its factualness, but does not establish that it is notable. A secondary source needs to have taken note of it. With articles on schools, it's important to understand that the article is not "the school's webpage on Wikipedia". It is an article in an encyclopedia which is curated with the policies and guidelines built up here over the years. That can be disappointing, but it's important to understand. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Who deemed you the appropriate person to determine whether or not something is "notable enough" for an encylopedia? I completely understand trying to rid pages of promotional language, but to repeatedly go back and remove information about the school that readers might find useful seems odd. Hawthorne72 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody. Notability standards have developed over the years, and editors in the community apply them. You don't seem to understand that usefulness is not a criterion Wikipedia considers sufficient enough to warrant inclusion. All editors are part of the Wikipedia community, yourself included. But editors are expected to follow the norms, and respect the opinions of other editors (without necessarily agreeing). Notability is not a cut and dried thing, of course, so policies often require some interpretation. Did you solicit another opinion from the "Teahouse", as I suggested? We might find out that my opinion does not reflect the community standards. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice, though I didn't see anything specific to this. You might also try to find someone involved in that Wikiproject that could offer an opinion. (Personally, I don't know anything about how the projects work.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Varian Fry

We think he may have helped Boris, Helen and Andre Kaufman escape from Paris to Juan-les- Pin to Lisbon in 1941. If so we would be honored to give him or anyone else credit for saving their lives. Boris was a cinematographer and went on to get an Oscar for On the Waterfront. Andre also became an artist and is now 92. You may call/text me at [phone number removed] 73.218.181.104 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The only edit I see in your history is the one to this page. You've either posted in the wrong place, or you need to explain what you're talking about. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Az 103.252.120.28 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

174.4.231.25

Hi! If you see an IP I've blocked recently vandalising again, feel free to ping me and I'll happily renew the block. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How efficient! Thanks for the note. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

huh

I think I was in my late teens or early 20's when I learned that numbers provenance. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it's interesting to give the benefit of the doubt, and see what they come up with. But, yeah, same here... Perhaps they'll say "that was the year I was born", thinking we were born yesterday. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Re: just a number" 🙄. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One of the things I regularly do is look through the list of newly created accounts that have already edited, and watch out for any username that suggests it may be worth watching the account. The commonest giveaway sign is a name that looks like the name of a business, but there are several other genres, including anything including that number. Sometimes it's just a good faith editor who thinks it's funny to include it in their username, but more often it's a vandal, so it's very helpful of them to call attention to themselves in that way. JBW (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your "see also" notes on vandal talk pages, linking to "covandals"; it was really helpful. Frustratingly often I see mentions of "other accounts", but no indication what other accounts. JBW (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear those notes help. Thanks for the confirmation. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ormond College

HI,Just reaching out regarding your recent edit on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormond_College page, you have written that alumni "failed to qualify" this is not the case may i ask if you could please revert it back to its previous format as it had been like that for a year. Thanks.

This is also a premier college in Australia and looks incomplete without an alumni list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INSHALLAH54355 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see there's been some activity to restore notable alumni there, and discussion at the talk page. In "Notable" lists, the standard for notability as Wikipedia sees it, is that the person have an article about them already. There should also be a citation to verify their attendance at the school. I'm not sure what the guidance says about including lists of Fulbright and Rhodes scholars. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gerry James RIP

THE NEWS IS OUT 205.189.94.70 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Where can Wikipedia point readers to, to confirm that the information is correct? Especially in the case of reporting the death of a living person, it's very important that Wikipedia get it right. For that content to be added, it needs to come with a reliable source, not just a declaration that "the news is out." Where did you hear/read of it? _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Re Please stop your disruptive editing

Below you find the links to the sourced information straight from Purdue's website. The information is sourced and factorial information replacing outdated information.

Purdue University names Chris Holford as next chancellor of Purdue University Northwest - Purdue University News

Purdue University Northwest Begins Enrolling Students in Doctor of Technology Program - Purdue University Northwest (pnw.edu) Donjon13 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As you were leaving this note, I responded on your talk page. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sam Campbell Age

I have added two citations which independently confirm Sam Campbell's age to be 32, date of birth 19 September 1991. One is Lou Sanders who texted Sam to get his DOB, and other is Sam himself on a podcast.

For further proof, Sam and his mates (jokingly) uploaded his CV on the skills in time FaceBook here. It does confirms other information too like his full name and his education. Please revise your edit. Thepowerandtheglory (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume reference to your edit here [3]. All of those sources are extremely weak by Wikipedia standards. I won't revise any of my edits, but I'll let others judge further edits. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering he's a comedian that repeatedly jokes about his life (such as joking he was from Maroochydore when he's actually from Atherton), these sources are not bad. Also one of the sources is literally his own words (the Trusty Hogs podcast).

Citation number 1 that is currently listed in the infobox states he was 26 in April 2018, so considering he was born on September 19 that would make him 32 now anyway, even if you didn't use the sources 2 and 3. He would have been 31 up until 19 September 2023. So either way he could not be 31. Doing simple math tells you it is impossible for him to be 26 in April 2018 but 31 in February 2024. Thepowerandtheglory (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the CV I linked has information about Sam Campbell that is both 1. correct (the email listed is indeed his email, he has even shown his email on screen in a lot of comedy shows and it's the exact same email, it's on his YouTube video descriptions etc etc.), and 2. not obtainable anywhere else (his middle name for example). The only source for his middle name is legitimately that CV. Considering that skills in time post was made in 2015, it's hardly one that could've been made up by someone. Thepowerandtheglory (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of my Page for Promotional purposes

Hey Williondon, This is Biswakibarfii trying to reach out to you about the deletion you just made to my page which has been created recently, Please try to understand that the page Draft:The Wondering Pi is not made for any promotional purposes, the links and citings are added just to check and review our networks which are available on Telegram, Youtube etc. So Please remove the deletion Biswakibarfii (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a promotional page. And you have a conflict of interest, shown by your use of "we", etc. in the content. You can read WP:PROMO, and WP:COI to get more information on why your draft was not suitable for Wikipedia. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Please don’t accuse me of vandalising Wikipedia when obviously I haven’t had access to my account. I’ve had to change my password due to somebody having access so please again don’t accuse me for doing wrong when I was hacked thank you. Itssgrant (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Drmies undid my edits

can you restore the edits i did on the richard dawkins page that drmies undid with no rational fair defense given. If you look at what I added youll know the additions are factually correct and well citated and needed. I have tried to speak to him but he hasnt replied so far. Would be great if you spoke to me thanks. Robinhoodph (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Before I saw this, I responded on your talk page [4]. No, I won't restore them. Factually correct and cited is not enough. Not every bit of trivia found on Twitter, YouTube and other primary sources is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. To help decide what is notable enough to include, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, sources that have taken note of the primary sourced content and published some analysis, commentary or plain reporting. If a secondary source hasn't taken note of it, there's a good chance it isn't notable, and shouldn't be included. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this your rules or wikipedia rules? If you and everyone follows those rules because its wikipedia I will too. If they are yours. Nope Robinhoodph (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

so aslong as its a secondary source and its true anything can be added? Robinhoodph (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Half of the references are to books which are primary sources so I dont believe these are wikipedias rules. If they are then you need to get to work and delete all those book references to richard dawkins books. Robinhoodph (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I leave it to you to discover whether I'm talking about my rules, or Wikipedia's rules. I'll end with a quote from my response on your talk page: Perhaps the most valuable survival skill for a person discovering for themselves a society with a developed system of conventions and guidelines is to be sensitive to signs that your actions are going against the grain.. _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I just proved to you they arent wikipedias rules. Your an expert in incorrect rules. Rules are founded on thinking. They dont come out of nowhere. I could think of some better rules. If you care about wikipedia which you and drmies clearly dont then youd welcome more correct information on an article like Richard Dawkins. Robinhoodph (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)