User talk:Willondon/Archives/2023 Aug - Oct

Potters House Edits

Please improve any change or discuss any edits on the Talk page instead of simply reverting a change. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes. Let's work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

Every edit and improvement should not have to be a contested battle. Wcwarren (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what you are talking about? On the Potter's House Christian Fellowship article, my last three edits were reverts:

• July 31 [1], summary: "not an improvement" (reverting an added short summary reading "Facts, details and history of this global church organisation that started over 50 years ago")
• July 14 [2], summary: "unsourced synthesis and original research"
• June 2 [3] (3 edits), summary: "remove broken markup"

Have you posted on the wrong editor's page by mistake? You seem to imply contentious editing, perhaps edit warring, and threats of adminstrator action. So is this a mistake on your part? If not, I find your comments to be belligerent and ridiculously out of line. My edits have clear edit summaries, and in the above cases, not contested by anyone in the community, except for the second revert, which was reinstated by the original editor [4], and subsequently reverted again by a different editor [5].

In contrast to your wild characterization "every edit and improvement should not have to be a contested battle", none of the reverts have been part of a contested battle, apart from your belligerent statements here. Not every revert needs to be prefaced with a discussion on the talk page, either. Talk page discussion happens when there is a back and forth in editing, and it is clear that edit summaries are not providing a detailed and compelling enough arguement that satisfies the entire community. I will be visiting the talk page for that article. Please tell me you didn't mean to post this on my talk page. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"Disruptive editor"

I'm looking at it, but this? What was wrong with the edit? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the editor's talk page User talk:72.212.64.192, and contribution history, you might agree that this is nothing but a disruptive editor. From the sheer volume of edits made over the past few hours, I do briefly look at the edits, but am not prepared to evaluate every one thoroughly, or in isolation. I'm aware there a tiny few improvements, most are either nonce edits, or a tedious back and forth editinng, bloating the edit histories and making it difficult for volunteers combatting vandalism here to identify true vandalism. Do you have administrator priveleges? You might want to take a look at AIV. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I did. I don't agree: the editor is making mistakes, but not all edits are mistakes, and WP:AGF applies. If you're not prepared to evaluate them, please do not revert. As for my privileges, and perhaps my experience, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

So, yes. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum to my off-line message to you, I note that in both situations: I was not the only one who reverted the editor's copious edits (including at least one administrator), I was not the one who initially made the AIV report which remained unaddressed for hours, and in both cases, an administrator ultimately blocked the editor (though I see that the recent situation has been modified to a partial block). _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Getting unblocked

Hello Will London I am messaging you for advice, even though there's a high unlikeleness that I will never be unbanned I seek to try and right the wrongs that I committed but also to try and fix the actual history around the Quebec biker War. The other editor has made several mistakes where they have written stuff that is no even mentioned in the reference. It seems that my personal feud with this individual has caused them to try and make the Alliance side of the conflict look much weaker than they actually were. If you look at the Quebec biker war page it is basically written like a slaughter. This other editor is just like me in ways, but they only write Hells Angels content they are constantly involved with producing pages just focusing on the Hells Angels either way things should be properly depicted they just aren't if you are willing to hear me out I can send you multiple legitimate examples with references. Either way I am looking to get on block so that I can try and do good by the community yes I have continued to edit after being blocked but my edits have been legitimate and beneficial I have only fixed my mistakes and to depict the history. What is the process that I would have to take in order to be unblocked I really don't expect to be with how this community is but I want to give it a shot. 2605:8D80:6E1:F09F:A1A8:7DB7:402D:D263 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In your contribution history, I only see the posts to my talk page here, so I don't know which account name or IP you were blocked under. You would start out by reading Wikipedia:Appealing a block, and see if there's anything there that would provide a path to getting unblocked. I'm not sure, but I think blocked IPs or accounts can still make edits to talk pages (unless further abuse has resulted in losing that privelege, too). If that's so, you can make edit suggestions on Talk:Quebec Biker War. Or, if you can be specific about which statements are not supported by the references, I can take a look at making a correction. Good luck. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Thank you for your attention to my edits. A reasonably strong consensus has been reached on the talk page that the wording of falsehood is misleading. A lack of evidence is legally different than proving a claim is false. This particular claim will be nearly impossible to prove false and the sources are lacking concrete evidence. Removing the language jumping to these conclusions has been determined and is valid. I will be reverting the changes back and kindly request you respect the consensus of the talk page.Mav214 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I certainly will respect the consensus on the talk page, but I see no consensus for your edit there. I assume you're referring to the discussion at Talk:Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory#The allegations being "false" needs to be removed from the introduction.. I fail to see how you could possibly see this as agreement with your edit, but to each his own. One problem I see is that you are arguing your case based on the various logical and semantic merits of not calling them false. A key virtue in the design of Wikipedia is that it routinely rejects the burden of determining fact, notability and viewpoints by relying on reliable secondary sources to do that, and instead includes their conclusions in the encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia itself does not do research or adjudication, and instead relies on scholarship in summarizing and presenting those sources that are purposed and equipped to do that work. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mall edits

Hi, there are several sources for each new store at Oakbrook but would it be necessary to list every one? Also can I go ahead and add the stores back in with references? Regards 174.215.219.158 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You need a source for each store that supports its presence in the mall as a notable fact. Some recent sources you've added barely mention the mall at all (see Willowbrook Mall (New Jersey) [6]), and are really articles about the store, not its presence in the mall that the article is about. (P.S. I'm only following Oakbrook Center and Willowbrook articles for now. I expect to review all the other mall articles, once the main discussion plays out.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Every article mentions to a degree how much of an accomplishment the store opening are. 174.215.219.158 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Willondon! Does this help? If not, please undo. Regards, Technopat (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Technopat. I decided to remove it because there are a lot of different sources for the article. The recent problem was more a matter of material being added that wasn't sourced, not that the article needed more sources per se. It seems that problem has been dealt with now, so the template seems unnecessary. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed that that particular template never actually seems to dissuade anyone. Or maybe it does... who knows? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

War in Amhara

You state that Twitter is not an acceptable source while completely ignoring the photographic evidence in the post I cited. Also the account I cited is an Ethiopian news service account. If it was a Western news account would you have made the same complaint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historical Integrity (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this edit here [7]. I have not seen the photograph cited; whenever I try to access a page on twitter.com, I get an error message "the page isn't redirecting properly". I don't have an account on Twitter, but I understand that the platform has been in a bit of turmoil of late, especially regarding verification of who is posting exactly. I reverted the edit because Twitter is considered generally unreliable as a source for Wikipedia, for reasons detailed at WP:RSPTWITTER. My decision was not guided by whether or not a source is "Western news". Assume good faith, please. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if my post came off as hostile. The Associated Press just released an article on the incident and I will use that instead. Historical Integrity (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A much better source. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Elinor Otto

I just edited Elinor's Wikipedia page with a few CORRECTIONS & MORE ACCURATE INFO. May I know why you reversed those edits? Thank you Rosietheriveter1919 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all in the edit summaries:

• [8]: "not what the source says"; you made changes, and when I checked the source, the title was not what you changed it to be, and your added content was not in the source
• [9]: "restore title of citation to match source"; again, a check on the source showed that the title had been changed
• [10]: "unsourced, unexplained changes"; again, changing the title of a source, and adding information that is not sourced
• [11]: "remove new addition not found in the source"

So, stop fiddling with the citation titles, changing what the source said, and stop adding content without a source, and that doesn't appear in the sources already there. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

WHO ARE YOU & WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING ACCURATE INFO?

Elinor is my grandmother's sister. Elinor has lived with me since 2019. WHY ARE YOU DELETING ACCURATE EDITS? MY SOURCE IS ELINOR OTTO

ELINOR IS 104 TODAY

Please tell me what I need to do to correct her page without you undoing the corrections Thank you

Brenda Wynne aka rosietheriveter1919 & Elinor's 7753391387 Rosietheriveter1919 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Rosietheriveter1919, please turn off the caps lock, and consider that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published information, not family lore or original research. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below)

It can be frustrating for those who have first-hand knowledge, but Wikipedia is based on a recognition of secondary reliable sources. To add, for instance, that she is the only civilian to receive the reward, find a secondary source that readers can follow to be assured of it. And in respecting the reliance on sourcing, please do not change the sources others have provided by changing the titles and URLs willy-nilly, thus misrepresenting what the source said. Thank you. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Elinor Otto is not considered a reliable source for you?

It's based on HER life?

Who better to provide info?

This is not "family lore".

It's fact, from her own accounts of HER life.

She did not work for BOEING in the 40's. She started at ROHR. Fact, not family lore.

She worked nearly 67 building Airplanes. Fact, not family lore. (Almost 50, few months shy was for BOEING only, not total years building Airplanes.) Rosietheriveter1919 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not that Wikipedia thinks you are wrong or lying, it's that you have to help Wikipedia vouch for your edit. A reader should be able to trace statements to a source that convinces them that the knowledge is true. And no, Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source to be someone claiming to have an inside insight, and in all caps. Sorry. But that's the way it is. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying for the "source info" I did inadvertently edit.

As this is my first time trying to correct inaccurate info?

I didn't realize I was in the source info parts, (my mistake & I get that)

As far as first hand account not being reliable?

That I don't understand.

I will research & find out how to get the information on here corrected that is wrong.

Elinor knows all about Elinor & should be able to correct her own story when it is wrong?

Thank you for looking out for accurate info though.

We both appreciate it. Rosietheriveter1919 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could start with my revert here [12]. Where did you get the information that she was the only civilian to receive the award? It doesn't appear in the source that was already there. To be a durable edit in Wikipedia, it would need to come from a reliable source that the reader can be directed to. Your edits changing wording of sources assert a preference between descriptions such as "last serving" and "longest serving". Both descriptions are available in the sources, and again, in the interest of respecting the reliance on proper citations, they should be left alone to reflect what the various sources actually say. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Elinor passed in Las Vegas at Centennial Hills Medical Center at approximately 3am on 12 Nov 2023 at age 104. Rosietheriveter1919 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. It looks like she will be remembered for living a very productive life, and providing so many years of service to country. My sincere condolences. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)