User:Willondon

To leave me a message, put it at the bottom of my talk page .''

It's just Wikipedia
Avoid editing wars. When there's been a tussle over some portion of an article, I remind myself that it's just Wikipedia. In my last salvo, I make my best case, and encourage opponents themselves to edit the article to my satisfaction. If they do, I've convinced. If not, the article stands as desired by the community. Many articles have watchers numbered in dozens. When I've spent my all, I trust other editors to carry on if it's justified.

What is "not an improvement"?
I sometimes use "not an improvement" to explain my reversal. The article is just better the way it was, in my opinion. It's reversing an edit without going into detail as to why, because it's a nuanced argument that I can't fit into the edit summary, or more often because I have no clue how to explain myself.

It offers other editors the opportunity to bear the burden of deciding. Usually, my "not an improvement" reversals go unchallenged. If any editor reasserts the edit, I accept it as evidence that they've taken an interest in the article, and reflected on whether or not the edit is indeed an improvement.

I am but a cog
When reverting, a bold editor is admirable, but I am sometimes a coward. If I'm hesitant that I could justify a revert if called on it, let another editor or inertia deal with it. Wikipedia is crawling with editors, so it might be wise to see if somebody else is bolder and wiser. Also, why should I do all the work? Where an article is watched by only a few people, I try to be a little bolder in my stewardship. I respect the emergent nature of Wikipedia's power.

unsourced, unexplained
Some think that Wikipedia aims to provide objective truth. It does not (see WP:Verifiability, not truth). Wikipedia seeks to provide only knowledge that can be traced to reliable sources. Enough information should be given that any doubtful reader can follow a path and be convinced that the knowledge is true.

Durable edits rely mostly on two things: sources and explanations. If an edit is properly sourced (see WP:Verifiability), it stands a good chance of staying in Wikipedia. If not, it might achieve persistence by explaining why Wikipedia was changed in this way (see Help:Edit summary).

Without a source or an explanation, any valuable contribution is vulnerable to being wiped away with the explanation "unsourced, unexplained". If it's not a big deal, accept the rejection. If it's sort of a big deal, repeat the edit with an account of where you got the information from -- if not a formal citation, then something in the edit summary. If it is very important that Wikipedia speak the truth about something, you should be ashamed if you repeat an edit without explanations and sources. The truth will be reverted again, and people won't know.

Would that we could include you
Discussions that refer to policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community often use "we" and "our". Does this mean "we, the Wikipedia community, but not you"? or "we, the Wikipedia community, including you"? Especially when discussion addresses a user that is new to Wikipedia, the ambiguity takes on a meaning correlated to the perception, in that user's mind and in all readers' minds, of how much of an outsider the user is. Some languages have a simple grammatical way of distinguishing between "we, excluding you" and "we, including you" (clusivity). Would that English had that, too.

Straight from the horse's mouth
Why did your edit get reverted when it's backed up by primary sources? A common misconception about primary sources: "Primary sources are the best sources of info (this is Basic Info 101)". It seems intuitive that "straight from the horse's mouth" is the very best you can get for sourcing. Not so: Don't be puzzled if your primary sources have been reverted as "unsourced". The above is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources in preference to primary and tertiary sources, and may consider statements "straight from the horse's mouth" to be essentially unsourced.
 * It does not support notability. If a celebrity twitter says "I just bought a new car!", it may be true, we may have no reason to doubt it, but until a secondary source comments on it, Wikipedia does not consider it inherently noteworthy.
 * It is not necessarily accurate. The celebrity might tweet "The sales staff wouldn't give me the time of day. So I paid cash, then took the same amount of cash and burned it right in front of them!" Well, until a secondary source with a reputation for checking into things reports on it, it's not necessarily true, even though the celebrity is "the one that was there".
 * It is not useful as part of original research. If the celebrity tweets "Just in time. My old car was almost a year old! Ugh.", it's original research to say "Celebrity doesn't care about poor people or the damage that rampant consumerism is doing to the environment." Unless a secondary source puts those things together and reports on it, it is not useful to Wikipedia, and will likely be deleted as unsourced.

How to have the last word
Having the last word is executing an end to an indefinite stream of dialogue. Some forms of discussion (brainstorming, improvisational comedy) use the Yes, and... philosophy. How many boring meetings and sketch routines have thereby suffered a dismal, drawn out death? What you want is the No. method. To capture the last word:
 * Avoid forays into the personal. Concentrate on edits, not editors. Arguments about editors go on and on, and as long the editors are alive, there is no satisfactory last word.
 * Don't ask rhetorical questions: questions that make a point, but aren't really meant to be answered. They will be answered. Now you must strive further for the last word.
 * Stick to the point. Be concise. Every expression of your mind's "and another thing" is just more fodder for refutation.
 * Not everything needs to be acknowledged or responded to. Just the things important to the point.
 * Silence is a powerful statement. A powerful tool in both shunning and rhetoric, it serves comedy, too. Use it when responding to the fool. Let the reader savour the joke. Don't ruin the joke by explaining or elaborating on the foolishness.

Often, the trick to having the last word is to speak through the force of the unspoken.

Snipe hunting the troll
Do not call out the troll. You will often look foolish, and it will always be unproductive. Better to ignore an editor’s intentions, and concentrate on the edits themselves. The troll, like the snipe, is a real thing, and like the snipe hunter, those who call out the troll may look foolish, either by rewarding the troll, or perhaps by falsely accusing the truly and tragically inept. The troll wants you to discover it after a lengthy game. The best trolls tread a thin line between are they really that dense? and no, this editor is just trying to disrupt things for attention. Calling out a troll gives it a strange, masochistic reward: being thought useless and annoying with good intentions, then revealed as useless and annoying with bad intentions. I don't claim to understand it. But you can never tell if someone is truly inept, or just a troll. So it's better to concentrate on the edits, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. The end result should be the same.

Accolades
Willondon has received many accolades, nine in the form of barnstars so far. And if you don't consider that "many", there are also hosts of thanks received about my her their edits. Willondon is not sure what they mean, but I he  Caesar they give s thanks sometimes when she they: (Bless you Mitchell and Webb) Anyway, the point is that there are plenty of Willondon's accolades to be marvelled at in Their fuller article at
 * acknowledge another editor's effort tackling an especially difficult task, or
 * acknowedlge one who resolved an editing conundrum in a way that should satisfy all, or
 * made an edit with an edit summary that really brightened my *honk* Caesar's *honk* their day, or
 * responded satisfyingly to a talk page post of mine *honk* hers *honk* Caesar's *honk*, but I he *honk* don't they doesn't don't need to clutter their  no, his, no their talk page with an "OK" message, or
 * when they innocently thank an editor that may in the future fall into disrepute

Miscellaneous things

 * 20:50, 30 June 2015: There's nothing wrong with this format, but let's admit that it's awfully tempting to change the time of day to "50:20".


 * Incompetance: When criticizing others, don't worry about mispelling 'incompitent', because any deviation from the currently correct 'incompetent' can be readily defended as ironic. (See also "uneducated fouls")


 * Made it better: The algorithms of are mysterious to me, but we both seem to sense that an edit summary of "made it better" is a sure sign of shenanigans. (Note: This is a statement about Wikipedia edits, not politicians.)


 * Cahoots: If more than one editor opposes you, using similar lines of reasoning to arrive at similar conclusions, they may all be in cahoots. What are the chances that all those editors could reflect independently and come to the same conclusion? It’s more likely that they’re conspiring against you. If in doubt, consult an administrator about cahoots.


 * History of computers: Hurrah, it’s my turn at the counter at last! But the clerk seems frustrated, irate and harrassed. What’s wrong with this stupid PC Load of crap? they asked, and I remembered the ‘70s when gurus and seers confidently forecast that paper will be a thing of the past, and everything will go lightning fast. (August 2018) *sigh*


 * Ending in zero: It's apparently an important birthday. I definitely feel a decade older, and I feel very much wiser, too. I'm just not sure about what.

Last part of this user page
Wikipedia is made of scholars, gnomes, experts and vandals, and administrators treading like Socrates in sandals. This creaky machine of jerry-rigged parts and chaotic schematics triumphs nevertheless in fits and starts. As long as we're all having fun...

Cheers, Willondon (talk).

Please send for help, if you can.