User talk:Willondon

Please put new topic messages at the bottom of the page.
If you posted here and expect a reply, look for it here.

Archives

2009 - 2011 2012 - 2013 2014 2015 Jan - Jun 2015 Jul - Sep 2015 Oct - Dec 2016 Jan - Mar 2016 Apr - 2017 Dec 2018 - 2020 2021 2022 Jan - Feb 2022 Mar - Apr 2022 May - Dec 2023 Jan - Apr 2023 May - Jul 2023 Aug - Oct 2023 Nov - Dec 2024 Jan - Feb 2024 Mar - Apr 2024 May - Jul 2024 Aug - Dec

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You user page is a breath of real fresh air. I literally spit out my coffee when I read "Often, the trick to having the last word is to speak through the force of the unspoken.". Hilarious!! Mamani1990 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1000 2409:4073:4EB3:5C36:298:5F49:B569:20D (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the attribution of Slonim House on Sarah Lawrence College's campus from being that of Harrie T Lindeberg? Otherwise it is a distinctive building done by nobody. The structure has been identified as that of the architect, so to nix the proper accreditation is rather unclear. The locations align to publications for HTL at that particular Bronxville location. Thanks. Kellsboro Jack (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [1]. I reverted the edit because there was no source cited. You must have got the information from somewhere; you just need to point the reader to where you got it from. It's not that Wikipedia thinks you are incorrect or lying; it's just that you have to help Wikipedia vouch for your edit. You can read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to find out what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. And you can read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to add the citations to the article. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, same as my post below they are extremely complicated for new users. It would be helpful if they were written in step by step instructions, without lots of code/tech words and wiki speak. I expect the majority of contributors, or those who wish to, are not programmers. Thanks. Francis James Patrick Bradford (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. Over the months, I've made some notes on how it might be better presented and explained. It would be an undertaking to make substantial reorganization of a long-standing guideline, but your note here adds another bit of encouragement for me to do that. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eight minutes; impressive! J S Ayer (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've come across the word "co-vandal" before, but it sums it up pretty neatly. JBW (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after I heard my daughter say "hangry", we used it around the house more, and I thought for a while that she'd made up the word herself. So I'm not about to claim coining credit just yet. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

daddy Enterusernames (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in here. Just some advice, which you can take or leave, but I generally find that one needs to explain things in more detail with editors who have no clue what anything Wikipedia is. You and I both know what a reliable secondary source is, but the average person probably does not, and asking them to read a lengthy policy page almost never works. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I should mention that I had an edit conflict with your last edit. I think in concert, we presented the summary and the detail. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re too complicated. Can we have a FaceTime, or WhatsApp chat so you could guide me through the steps, needed. Thanks. This is my first day editing family details. Is there a way to privately message each other to share relevant details? Have you deleted the family corrections and errors on the sites pages that I have spent hours correcting?Francis James Patrick Bradford (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like most Wikipedians, I don't provide "live" guidance. And I rarely correspond privately; it's preferred that Wikipedia activity be transparent and available to all. I've always thought WP:Reliable sources jumped into the weeds at the start with details about viewpoints, etc. One summary I can give you is that Wikipedia does not accept personal knowledge as a source; instead it relies on reliable, published secondary sources for verification. A secondary source, one removed from the subject and with no vested interest in it, provides a measure of both accuracy and notability. Perhaps a good start would be to pick just one edit you would like to make. Then, if you can find a published source (e.g. history book, newspaper report) to back it up, leave me a note here or on your talk page, and I can go on to help you with adding the appropriate {{cite}} template. Yes, I did delete them. The edits are still available on the "View history" page, so they can be recovered from there if need be. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis James Patrick Bradford (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time to review all that until tomorrow. I kind of meant one simple statement that we could walk through verifying and documenting the source. Anyway, tomorrow I will have more time to look at it all. Vive le week-end. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to start an edit war over this.

I am trying my best to make this particular article the best it can be. It has shown great progress and has incredible potential, but unfortunately our best source for progress on this particular piece of tech IS the primary sourced blog by Neuralink themselves.

How can we work together to make this article better?

Urbanracer34 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to this edit here [2], edit summary "revert edit: primary source blog is the best resource we have regarding this article." There are two reasons a primary source is usually not the best resource. Wikipedia relies on sources to establish both the verity and encyclopedic notability of the content. With a primary source: (1) verity is not assured because of the conflict of interest; the company blog can say any old thing; also, if you check my official website, you'll see that I have won more international skateboarding competitions than any other competitor in skateboarding and surfing combined. (2) A primary source can't establish the encyclopedic notability of something; only a secondary source can do that by making note of it.

I plan to let your edit stand for a day or two. I sometimes avoid edit wars by accepting a slower pace for Wikipedia's growth, and figure: (1) you will be convinced by my argument and self-revert, (2) among the article's 360 watchers (16 in last 30d) someone else will revert it as not conforming with the policies and guidelines on sourcing, or (3) if neither happens, I might revert again, with a more forceful argument and a post to the article's talk page to invite community thoughts on the matter. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all my edits to the article so far today. I may reinstate them at a later date. Maybe we can take this conversation to the article's talk page so more people can discuss this long term? Urbanracer34 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. It's better that future editors of the article have easy access to this discussion. You can start the talk page discussion, or I'll have time to do that in about an hour. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make the discussion? I don't feel good right now. Thanks in advance. Urbanracer34 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just started the discussion now. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my friend has been on my account and has been changing stuff I'm not trying to get banned I like dirtbikes (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient, please. Instead of reverting my edits, why didn't you look at the Recent Deaths page to see whether she was listed and really was dead? Sometimes a lot needs to be done, like adjusting verb tenses and other wording changes, as well as entering the death date in the infobox. One thing at a time, please! Just wait awhile until an editor who knows what he's doing finishes his editing. Your knee-jerk edit was not appreciated. Kelisi (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons are held to a higher level of accountability when it comes to sourcing. Especially when reporting the death of someone, it's very important that Wikipedia get it right. I know there's a lot to be done with an article in these cases, but the proper way to do it is to add the source for the death first. That way, you can finish your work unfettered by other editors who know what they're doing. And now that I check your user pages, I see that you really should know all this by now. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You irrationally reverted my edits on Ronnie McNutt without giving any just reason to do so. It’s such a shame that new editors have to face discriminatory treatment by evil, tyrannical, egomaniac admins that plague this site and try to make anyone who they see as below them have the most insufferable experience. I speak on behalf of the wikipedia community and anyone else who has experienced unjust edit reversion. 2A00:23C4:908:E101:91E1:72C8:B8F5:75E4 (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [3], with the edit summary: "restore to stable version at 20:44, 12 March 2025". Since your IP at the moment shows only one edit to that article [4], your re-revert, I have no idea who you are, or which edit of yours I might have reverted. So let's just look at your revert [5]. My edit summary was perhaps too vague for you, as it seems your edit got caught up in a group of unconstructive edits. Based on what you reinserted: (1) the caption change adds unnecessary wordiness; (2) the Wikilink to Live streaming was helpful, so I added that back in; (3) a <nowiki/> was added among added awkward wordiness; (4) then an unhelpful link of "digitally altered versions" to "Artificial intelligence", when no sources say the altered versions were made with AI, rather than traditional photoshoppy techniques, and when a link to such a broad article as "Artificial intelligence" is unlikely to offer the reader much help in understanding the article in question (much like the overlinking on your post here to "just", "reason", "discriminatory", "evil", "tyrannical", "egomaniac" and "this site"); and (5) the removal of a reliable source with actual "no reason", not the more common emotionally punctuated "no reason!", meaning a reason that the utterer did not see, did not understand, or did not like.

As an admitted new editor, you're approaching this with the wrong attitude. You seem to have come in with conviction as to how Wikipedia works, an apparent belief that I am an admin, and a preloaded bazooka of bombastic buzzwords based on irrational notions of how admins here behave, none of which resonate at all with my lengthy experience here.

When posting to my page, please use diffs to document your concerns, and avoid morally outraged screed. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can see you are deleting the House section of the Cabra page, this section holds significant importance to the school and is a major part of school life. Could you please stop deleting this section, I have now referenced this part and would appreciate it if you could lt this section stay.

Cheers Mr Nusio (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to this edit [6]. this section holds significant importance to the school But does it hold significant importance to Wikipedia? It's important to understand that the article is not "the school's page on Wikipedia". It is an article that will be curated by the editing community according to established guidelines and policies. Wikipedia relies on reliablce sources not only to confirm information, but to establish notability (i.e. a secondary source, other than the school has made note of this). _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about Wikipedia not being the school’s personal page, but I believe the House system is an integral part of the school’s identity and student experience. While I see the concern about notability, many school articles include similar sections.

I'm just asking you to please leave this section in. It adds useful context for readers interested in the school’s structure and traditions.

Cheers, Mr Nusio (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging an intersection of the school's interests with Wikipedia's interests. There's an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice that offers guidance. In the section What not to include, it says "School houses, so beloved by Hogwarts fans, pose an interesting problem, they are relevant and should be mentioned if they serve a pastoral function but count as trivia if they are add-ons only rolled out on sport day to form artificial competition." I see your edits document a transition of the house system from that description to more expansive implementation. I'm happy to leave future editors (yourself included) to interpret the community consensus on curating school articles. (I'd probably delete details about Sport Day, not meeting the threshold of notability for an encyclopedia.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're my hero. Wolfdog (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You Suck You Suck. Why do you keep cleaning my clocks? That is not allowed. 174.128.153.62 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(When this rando says "you", I think they mean me.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willondon, I want to clarify you about this topic. Yes, Dom and Romani are not descendants of modern Indian but both of them came from Indian continent and share common ancestry. I am not here to do edit war or something else. But I am just editing the "See also" for navigation reason and for broader research on both Indian, Doma and Romani and also in context of Non-Resident Indian. I have not malicious reason to do this edit.

I did this edit in the context of Contributions of Indians to the Achaemenid Empire

Please forgive me, if you thought I did it for malicious reason. Primohare (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the stop sign warning. I've retracted it. A string of your edits over a batch of articles echoed a disruptive campaign (documented at User talk:Oilcocaine and an ANI discussion (details to follow)) to treat Romani as Indian in over 100 articles, which has been repeated over the years. Later, I'll reply with a linked summary of the fiasco that prompted me. It would be good to have it all in one place. From your user contributions, I see many valuable contributions on a variety of topic groups. Again, I should have checked your history first, so I'm sorry about the alarming warning. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romani and Doms are not descendants of modern Indian. They are descend from Indian subcontinent during pre modern era.

Yes, my fault is that I did not clarify my word properly.

I am not treating Indian, Romani and Dom as same entity. They just share common place of origin and common ancestry. My apology if I did disruptive editing due lack of my foresight. Primohare (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About two years ago, the community spent much time endeffort dealing with the same sort of edit. Please read User talk:Oilcocaine. and the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Seeking en masse rollback of disruptive edits. The consensus was that Romani/Doms are not close enough to Indian to be linked as "See also" on the many article affected. Please stop doing this until you can get a consensus that these are useful links to add. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I understand your problem. Thank you for your advice Primohare (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willondon, can you check this link related to this topic

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/world/can-romas-be-part-of-indian-diaspora

I found this source from Romani people in the Czech Republic#Post communist era Primohare (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to say that Doms can be considered part of the Indian Diaspora, not that present-day descendants are to be considered Indian. What you're doing is like editing Peruvians in Germany, and adding "See also: Spaniards in Germany. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What you're doing is like editing Peruvians in Germany, and adding "See also: Spaniards in Germany, Quecha people in Germany"

Peruvians and Spaniards can be related if they share same common ancestor. But this is not a proper comparison because Peruvians and Spaniards do not have common ancestor. Peruvian share common ancestry with Indigenous peoples of South America. Spaniards refers to people native to any part of Spain. It is like making comparison between Native Americans and White Americans Primohare (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilondon, Can you check this article Timeline of Romani history#Timeline

Some articles Romani and Dom as refer to as people of Indian descend or Indian Primohare (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Federation of Law Societies of Canada is still editing Federation of Law Societies of Canada. I feel like I should be doing something but I don't know what. Anyways just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thanks :D GlorpK4 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You Suck 174.128.153.62 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i noticed you reverted my edit at Julian Deda page, Jul is his short name cited at news and by him too, i forget to add source but i thought it was unnecessary at name parametter at infobox. Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, everything in Wikipedia has a relialbe source to verify it. Sources don't need to be added in the lede or infoboxes if the fact is already cited to a reliable source elsewhere in the article. So you would need to find a source to verify that he is sometimes referred to as "Jul". I would encourage you to look for sources, as this article is in danger of getting deleted. There are only three sources, and two of them are considered unreliable at Wikipedia (YouTube and IMDb). The third does not mention him by the name "Jul". Unless there are a variety of reliable secondary sources commenting on the subject of the article (not just a passing mention), it is considered "not notable", and does not qualify for an article. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not created by me, i just did that short name edit at infobox, as per sources i will try to add more sources to avoid article deletion. Lanceloth345 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like good sources. I note that "TV Klan" and "Gazeta Shqip" appear (though I don't read Albanian) to refer to him as "Jul" in their article titles, supporting your earlier edit. A couple more sources would be even better, but you've done a good job on improving the article. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those to support short name Jul, and few moments in his career, to keep article alive not being deleted, in future will be improved more or rewrited. Thank you Lanceloth345 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly remembered adding myself as a notable Alumnus of my high school well over a decade ago when I was still a student. I see that I slid under the radar for quite a while until you corrected the vandalism a few years ago. I peeped into your profile to see who you were (as my school was quite small) and it doesn't immediately seem like you have any discernible connection to my hometown or high school which got me wondering: How do you choose which pages to edit? The page for my school is also quite small and unremarkable, I'm very curious how editors find remote pages like this one to remove the entries without credible sources. Is there some sort of dashboard of articles referencing all the hyperlinks without their own pages or linked sources? Anyway, thank you for all the work you do! Sorry about the vandalism 209.204.240.132 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much WP:RCP and its residual care. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A polite request for you to desist from repeatedly making unnecessary and incorrect edits to Maldon & Tiptree FC. You are not a part of the new fabric of the Club so please refrain from removing factually correct adds/edits to the page. Feel free to drop in to the Club and talk to us if you wish to have further clarification/confirmation. Maldonned (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maldonned: - please read WP:OWN. Individuals who are part of "the new fabric of the Club" do not own the article or get to exclusively control its content, and any editor is perfectly within their rights to edit it providing they follow general Wikipedia guidelines. Please also read WP:COI for the rules governing editors who have a conflict of interest in an article, which it appears that you do in this case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you are making are removing anything new and factual about the Club, without fact checking or contacting the Club, which we invite you to do at any time. We are aware we don't own the page, and on the same note, neither do you, but we are aware of stadium name changes and the likes which for some reason you seem intent on continually removing. Again, we politely you to come to the Club and see for yourself the changes if you wish, you would be more than welcome. Maldonned (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maldonned: There is no requirement whatsoever to contact the subject of any Wikipedia article before making changes to said article. As for "fact checking", one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that content should be sourced to independent, reliable sources. Adding content based simply on personal knowledge is not permitted, otherwise anyone could add pretty much anything to any article and just say "well I say that's true". None of the recent edits to the Maldon and Tiptree article have cited any sources whatsoever and therefore editors are perfectly within their rights to remove the content. If you can provide independent, reliable sources supporting the content which you wish to add then it is less likely to be removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking and accuracy should be the tenet of any editor, which I am hoping you would agree with as I see you have done a fair amount of this sterling work in other locations. If you can provide independent, reliable sources that support you undoing the edits we are making on behalf of the Club, that would also be good to see. We are working to update the page so it is current, not keeping it as just a history page that your edits keep reverting it to. As I say, if you would care to make contact with the Club, we would be more than happy to share any of the new information with you to put your mind at rest on the accuracy of what is being added/edited. Maldonned (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia that editors are not tasked with verifying facts and determining notability. Wikipedia relies on relialbe secondary sources to do that. That is why citing such sources is required. Primary sources (e.g. the company's website) are of lesser value because of the risk of bias, and of almost no value in determining notability. Everything the primary source says is notable... to them. It seems Wikipedia is not what you expected it to be. It's important to note that the article is not the company's web page on Wikipedia. It's an article in an encyclopedia which is curated according to the policies and guidelines developed over the years. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I have had better advice from my Wikipedia mentor, a much more reliable and helpful source than yourself. So thank you, and I wish you well in your endeavours…elsewhere! Maldonned (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop stalking my edits? Treenerisgoofy (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the Nicole Newman article, I cleaned up the page and cited numerous sources in doing so. Why did you revert the edits? Yellowballbrownbat (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [7]. As I said in my edit summary: "unexplained changes, removal of sources". This was partly in response to your edit summary [8]: " ". _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? You reverted it to a poorly written and outdated previous version (including "current employment" that is four years outdated. How am I supposed to explain changes that are self-explanatory simply within the article's content? Yellowballbrownbat (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"update current employment; rewrite for clarity". _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see you came up with an ever better one [9]. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize - I had that box filled in and then apparently accidentally deleted it on the first edit. So when you referenced my edit summary, I was confused. It was only after my snarky reply that I realized my error. Yellowballbrownbat (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my correction on the outdated houses https://www.maryimmaculate.org.uk/house-system this is the source AlsFlow (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [10], edit summary: "unsourced, unexplained changes; removal of lede". Your edit [11] provided no edit summary by way of explanation, and for some reason removed the entire lede section at the top. So it was more than just a correction on the houses. As for the houses, there's an article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice that offers guidance. In the section What not to include, it says "School houses, so beloved by Hogwarts fans, pose an interesting problem, they are relevant and should be mentioned if they serve a pastoral function but count as trivia if they are add-ons only rolled out on sport day to form artificial competition." _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to make a wikipedia article for her anyways, she has amassed over 10 million followers (combined) on her socials over the last 10 years. Makes no sense for smaller creators to have an article yet hers is nonexistent. Powerflashes (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A knowledge panel on google also appears about her when you look up "Katie Brueckner" Powerflashes (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite possibly right that an article should be written. The current status is:

• There is no article about her, and Wikipedia requires that to qualify as "notable" as Wikipedia sees it.
• To write an article, multiple reliable secondary sources are needed. Pointers to YouTube channels, or other things that merely testify to the existence of something are not considered reliable (for WP's goals). And I'm pretty sure a knowledge panel on Google would not be considered reliable. Wikipedia aims to rely on what others have said about a subject. So even if a channel has a bazillion followers, you need to find secondary sources that have commented on it.

There's a lot of work in creating an article, and I don't have experience with that. But I can help with pointers to the right resources.

• First, understand what Wikipedia relies upon at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then find those sources.
• Get basic starting information at Wikipedia:Drafts, (don't bother unless you've found sources to support an article).

It can seem like a lot, but if you've found useful sources, and started a draft, there are ways to attract other editors that might help with all the tasks involved. Feel free to ask me for pointers if you decide to make it happen. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I personally don't have any experience either, however hopefully someone can create a foundation to build upon it. Powerflashes (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think their edits are disruptive? to me they just seem to be adding when places are in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area which is apparently a thing.©Geni (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [12].

None of the recent edits have an edit summary. And no source was added to say "Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area" is a thing. I'll stop reverting, I've already posted on WP:AIV, and I'll let it stand. If only the disruptive editing were adressed before this (not by them, though). It's a valid question to ask from one editor to another: What are you doing? _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the note in the first place. It's not necessary anymore cos the logo changed. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: [13]) Oh, I see now. I took it out again. Thanks for the note. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia WP:CONTEXTBIO, dual citizenship is important to note for political figures such as Harry Sisson. RakowskiC (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've also started a discussion at the appropriate place Talk:Harry Sisson (influencer)#Irish and American [14]. Let's continue there. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you extended-confirmed-protect or semi-protect the page? The vandalism from this page is mostly done by IP addresses. DudeJay17 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but you can request that at WP:RFPP (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). It's pretty easy; you just enter the title of the article you want protected, and a brief reason why. I don't see much recent vandalism, though. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my mistake on yellow and amber. Would it be proper to link to red and green for consistency? QYDAX (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume reference to my edit here [15]. I'm not sure if my correction was right. (1) I would not link red, green, or yellow, since they are names of well known and understood colours. I would link amber because it's not a common English word, but it seems to be something they use in formal and official descriptions (code of laws, technical docs, driver training manuals). (2) Where I live, nobody for thousands of miles around would say "I was going pretty fast when I saw the light turn amber, so it turned red before I could get through in time." It would always be "I saw the light turn yellow". So it could depend on when the context uses yellow, and when it uses amber.

So I got rid of the links to common colours. I don't know what the right thing is with yellow vs. amber. Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to make changes. As long as we accept feedback and learn from it, it works. The page has 365 watchers, 11 in the past month, so the community consensus is bound to correct things if necessary. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]