User talk:Willondon

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

Comments supported by examples rather that by references

I think in reference to my most recent edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Acronym&diff=prev&oldid=1238548924

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]

I would be hard pressed to find references but [...] Finding reliable references is one of the pillars of Wikipedia's basis. I or anyone else could find examples within Wikipedia [...] A large part of that is not relying on original research. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbridge

Hi can you stop changing and misdescribing my edits on this page. This is a person that has gotten wealthy by pretending to be something he isn't. The public should know the truth, I'm not trolling. Thanks 2A0A:EF40:2F8:8C01:5827:D70F:3E62:98D5 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for the content? That's what's missing. _signed,Willondon (talk) 16:32, 13 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.

This is from an actual player of Manchester United: https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/man-utd-red-devils-defender-paul-parker-influencer-mark-goldbridge/blt7fe6fcd03bb7cee8

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]

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]

I assume reference to your edit here [1].

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.

You know what, here is the link:

[2] SushiLover12345 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

also the [7] on my previous message is the link to my secondary source about the Nine dragons yoyo SushiLover12345 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]