User:Willondon/sandbox

My sandbox has more than sand in it. (Not in an Eewwwww! way, though.)

Strings for reuse
collect different abuses of user/talk/draft pages:
 * User talk page as web host
 * user page as web host
 * draft as web host
 * user page used as article draft

Sorry, but your user page does not conform to Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia; as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not: The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Thank you. posted on 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
 * a workspace for a draft article
 * a personal website, blog, or social media site
 * a space for self-promotion or other advertising
 * a CV/resumé
 * a lengthy autobiography

Warnings
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Do not add material to the Katherine Delmar Burke School article, if the source doesn't mention the school, or you are drawing a conclusion or making an inference that does not appear in the sources (synthesis). Further original research here will be considered vandalism. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Do not add material to the Katherine Delmar Burke School article, if the source doesn't mention the school, or you are drawing a conclusion or making an inference that does not appear in the sources (synthesis). Further original research here will be considered vandalism. ~

OilCocaine

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

See also: User Talk:Oilcocaine, blocked sock

To be edited Edit 2nd link spam warning to include info on: Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. and information on URLs getting banned with repeated abuse

Look into adding categories, where they're not the "real" Uw-spam2 notice, but this customized version

Draft articles It seems you are trying to create an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your user page is not the place for that. Your user page has been deleted before, and will likely be deleted again. The way to go about drafting a new article is to read Drafts, then create the content in the proper space for it at Wikipedia.

Bookmarks
Emergency email (physical threats, self-harm)

Template messages index (WP:TM)

Help:Infobox

Special:LinkSearch

Requests for page protection/Increase (WP:RPP)

Usernames for Admin Attention (WP:UAA)

Reliable sources/Perennial sources (WP:RSP)

WikiProject Schools - Article advice

List of policies and guidelines (OMG)

Template:Copyvio-revdel template to indicate text that needs redacted

DRAFTIFY moving inadequate articles to draft space Time card Edit profile Spam blacklist

Wiki tools list

 * Search through a page's history for edits made by a particular user
 * List changes made recently to pages linked from a specified page
 * List contributors to an article, ranked in order of activity
 * Find images for a given article, using interwiki links
 * Find which Wiki pages link to a particular site
 * What pages have you and another edited?
 * User's across-projects contributions
 * Search Wikipedia's back pages
 * Who wrote that? (Wiki blame)
 * User interaction tools page
 * Request page protection
 * Fix bare url reflinks
 * Readability meter
 * X!'s edit count
 * Citation Bot
 * Wikichecker
 * 3RR tool
 * Review
 * Emote
 * Help
 * AFD


 * Wikipedia is anonymous

Yes!
On OR and sourcing. 

User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior

WP:DGAF

User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts

User:SummerPhDv2.0/KIDSTVDATES

"Trust me" rationale:

Be bold article

User:Guy_Macon/One_against_many

Don't call a spade a spade

From CAPTAIN RAJU, good explanation of why Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself

Welcome to Wikipedia, but it is not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves. It is a quite different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles, and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Autobiography.

Wikipedia user pages are not like those at social-networking sites. Their use is explained at WP:NOTWEBHOST: "'Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.'" You can find out more about Wikipedia at the WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting
User:Surturz/Wikipedia as a database

I noticed that you have been marking all of your edits as "minor". At Wikipedia, "Minor edit" has a very specific definition. It refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.

Developing stuff
IP editors removing talk page content:, Where would such a policy be? Where is that change discussed? My thoughts: IP editors share an IP, so maybe they don't assert the same control over talk pages that registered accounts do. I accept IP editors as equal to registered editors, except in this respect. Removing and changing edits to the talk page may alter messages that were meant for other IP editors, or that should be available to other users of the IP.

The subject has bedeviled Wikipedia as long as I've been on the project: are schools universally notable? I will try, here, to work out my thoughts on the subject. First, I'll attempt to answer the most frequent arguments of those who wish for blanket approval of school articles, and then I'll attempt to argue that a blanket approval is not merely injudicious, but actually harmful. After that, I will offer up my own voting guide to school articles.

The inclusion argument: So far, I have heard two basic arguments about the blanket inclusion. One is that preserving information about schools here will be of service to researchers and the curious. The other is that finding one's school on the site, or creating an article about one's school when one is a student, encourages users to become contributors. This is aside from the "all are notable by affecting lives" argument, which I will deal with later. I hope to fairly represent these arguments.
 * Research To answer the question of research, I can only say what I have said elsewhere:  the primary source of information on schools or municipal institutions of any era is never a secondary source.  When you wish to find out about the elementary school that served the Black population in an American city in the 1940's, you do not look at an American encyclopedia of the 1940's.  You look to city records.  The city had to fund the school.  It had enormously complex and thorough documentation on the school.  Any future researching wanting to know about a public school in America of today would similarly go to a municipal record.  It would be foolhardy to ever look into any secondary source for that material.  The reason that you would never look into a secondary source is that a secondary source is only going to be even remotely useful if it is entirely comprehensive.  Inasmuch as Wikipedia relies upon voluntary contributors, it cannot under any circumstance be comprehensive about anything, or cannot guarantee that, and it cannot remain current comprehensively.  An article written in 2002 will stay unchanged through 2004, if it looks reasonable or another interested editor doesn't come along, and yet it will be out of date.
 * Interest Certainly one's present school is going to be interesting.  However, so will one's favorite store, favorite rock band, favorite game, favorite character from favorite book, favorite BBS, favorite chatroom, favorite toy, favorite buddy, favorite lover, favorite magazine, etc.  To me, we cannot say that because some might have interest we must allow all schools in.  That's simply not sufficient justification.  However, the most important danger of the "interest" argument is that it shows a fundamental understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia that I do not share.  We must ask ourselves one simple question:  Is Wikipedia a group participation project that looks like an encyclopedia, or is it an encyclopedia assembled by group participation?  Which is foremost:  getting people to contribute, or getting good content?  If the former, there is no reason to delete schools, or anything else, much.  I believe that Wikipedia exists only to provide an encyclopedia that is GFDL.  I will say that a person who cannot write an encyclopedia quality article is not welcome to write articles.  That excludes some people from authoring, but it excludes them based only upon their product, nothing else.
 * Growth: Wikipedia has to grow, right?  Well, that was the case.  Wikipedia needed to get off the ground, and it needed to attract contributors.  It still does.  However, it is no longer in any danger of indifference, no longer needing to attract users.  Now, we are having to shift energies from growth to strength, from acquisition to pruning.  We still need content, but we are no longer so much in need of content that we must change our standards to encourage it.

The second big prong of the "inclusion" argument is significance. As I have heard the argument, it states that schools, by virtue of affecting lives of all students, are inherently notable.
 * Answer: I do not deny that I was shaped by my schools, for good or ill. I do not deny that my hatred of my high school spurred me to achieve success in college.  In that regard, the argument is absolutely true.  However, I feel that a thing must not only have an effect, but must have a singular and essential effect.  I beg pardon for being academic, here, or dropping into philosophy, but the question is not whether a school has an effect, but if a school has an effect that is identifiably part of its essence.  Did the pretty girl at the next desk have an effect on her life that was characteristically or essentially the particular high school we attended?  Was it an effect that can be identified as being the Lincoln High Effect?  Does the effect have an identity, and therefore is the school itself, as itself, having the effect, or was it just being in a school of any sort?
 * Given the fact that public schools, in particular, are remarkably uniform across a state, region, or even nation, how can we say that the Lincoln High school had a particular identity? When "deletionists" argue that a school is just like all the others, what they're getting at is that everyone is altered by school, but that is due to school itself, and not this school itself.  In the case of private schools, the schools are much more likely to have a character, an identity, and a particular effect on a life.  A Friends school will be very different from a Opus Dei Catholic school, and both will be radically different from a Hebrew academy.  Each competes with the others and strives for unique character.
 * The fact that it is a school does not give it notability in a person's life, even the life of the students there now, for any school would do the same. That's why I and others ask that the school have some other mark to make it worthy of inclusion.  What else is there about it?  Did it blow up?  Did it serve as the set for Porky's?  What sets it apart from every other institution?

The argument against inclusion: Above, I was only rebutting the inclusion argument. As for why there is actual harm to inclusion, there are two general points. First is that the information is inherently lost. Second is that the information is at cross-talk or lost. (In process.)

I am confused as to why my edits were undone. I added sources to the basic information, a map of the school district, and photos of the campus building. I also added information (not encouraging a vote one way or another) for the upcoming bond on the May 7 ballot. I updated information that was posted in 2009.

This is my first time editing a page. So, I am really confused by having my efforts undone. If you look at the Jan. 27, 2022 afenda I used as source for the bond, you will see that I was contracted by the district to provide information.

Thanks!Ex-Journo (talk) 11:13 pm, 19 March 2022, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)


 * Here is the page just before I reverted you [17] (for the record). Some of your edits were OK, but a great many of them were not. For instance the listing of a number of staff members such as admin assistants, secretaries and accounting clerk. And the article shouldn't have a long, detailed list of the improvements covered by the bond issue. The pictures were a problem, too. One was featured twice; one was of the cafeteria, so not really notable; and the main picture was far too large, dominating the page. There's a guide at WikiProject Schools - Article advice, which is a good introduction for what's expected in school related articles.


 * What I will do going forward is, instead of reverting all your edits, I will visit the article later, and make the changes I think are required to bring it to Wikipedia standards. I don't want to discourage the improvements you did make. signed, Willondon (talk) 11:25 pm, 19 March 2022, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)

Hi Willondon,

Thanks for your feedback on the edits to the school page.

I do have a couple of questions, however on these edits if you could please clarify as to why they have been reverted:

- Removed links such as West End Extra on the current page are because they are dead links, the others can be included, but aren't so relevant now. - We have found many examples of where schools' live pages self-reference from their own websites with their websites as a primary source of information - why is this allowed for pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_London_Free_School? - Pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Oratory_School provide all the content of a school's mission statement without expressly saying so

Thanks for the other feedback, I will look to include these.

--PAHeadteacher MBS (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, WikiProject Schools/Article advice is the go-to guide for schools.
 * It's recommended to keep dead links, because it's still useful for future editors to find an alternate source or a new URL for the original. You can also mark them with a template, so lists can be compiled, and other editors and bots can have a go at finding an up-to-date link.
 * Secondary sources are prized, while primary sources are often dismissed. It depends on what they're being used for. There's establishing a fact, and establishing notability. If the school's website says "our cafeteria offers many vegetarian dishes", it's vulnerable to deletion as self-serving cruft. If a reliable newspaper says "the trend toward vegetarian alternatives is growing in the big cities, but School Name brings that choice to regions all too often lacking in variety", there's your noteworthiness. Things like the current head teacher, school colours, current year's budget, enrollment, etc. are usually not covered by secondary sources, so primary sources like the school's web page are accepted, it being understood by consensus that those are nevertheless noteworthy things.
 * I couldn't see where the school missions were laid out in West London Free School or London Oratory School, even as a paraphrase.
 * West London Free School had many sources from The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and Evening Standard, etc.
 * London Oratory School had some, too, but I did notice under "Curriculum" phrases like "broad range of subjects" (who says it's broad?) and "students work towards", which weren't even sourced to the school website.
 * Many guidelines are applied only on an "objection basis", and things may or may not get deleted. School articles can be a grey area, and they're not as likely to come to the attention of editors as do general interest articles. In the guideline at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there's a principle described in "What about article x?". In any case, Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia that relies on consensus supported by guidelines and policies that develop over time.
 * On a general note: I reverted your edit wholesale . It made a number of changes in one go. A series of tiny little edits makes for a messy edit history for the article. On the other hand, splitting up one large edit into "logical" or "thematic" chunks, especially if it's been reverted, can help isolate the objectionable parts from things that may not be contested. Hope that all helps with your editing. Cheers.  signed, Willondon (talk)  23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Active
https://bugoutbill.com - repeat offender

YouTube Channels

Direct links to NFT objects on rarible.com [sic]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

See also: vandalism from
 * Quandale Dingle
 * Quandale Dingle 1
 * QuandaleDingle5
 * Quandale Dinglebop
 * Quandale08
 * Quandaledingle1738
 * QuandaleDingle213216

All vandalizing with last year's Q D meme name: ,,,,, etc.   signed, Willondon (talk)  13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.lovereading.co.uk

Spam
https://bugoutbill.com - repeat offender

https://www.0v0.world - repeat offender

Also: http://flashfund.cf

https://sunshinecremation.com

https://sunshinedonation.com

https://www.cryosinternational.com

https://nftportal.co

https://www.opploans.com (multiple)

https://writtenbyshweta.com

https://techmatemag.com

https://www.domesticshorthaircat.com

https://abdulrehmanilahi.com

http://sportscars.byethost22.com

Other
CABs
 * 187oauc
 * Zeronicyber
 * Creativmindd

Other
 * 209.97.90.201 - music lists, inept edits
 * User:Pinkypoodle9981
 * User:Mohan parihar 360

Testing Stuff
I noticed that you have marked all your edits as minor. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. It refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add an edit summary with your edits, to explain why you are making changes. Your edits have been reverted because it was not clear to other editors that they were an improvement. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thank you.

I noticed that you recently marked edits as minor when they were not. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. It refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections and the like. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

In your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you.

Source assessment table
Prompted by vandalism from a couple days ago, I believe some attention needs paid to IP 31.185.239.191. There's a bit of vandalism, long term problematic editing, perhaps block evasion/sockpuppetry. Please advise if I should take this to a more specific notice board. I think it's clear that (recently blocked) and IP  are the same person; contributions show same edits to same handful of articles (primarly Bucksburn). About 90% of the edits are headstrong efforts to add reverted content despite many warnings and detailed advice; about 1% are straight-up vandalism, ,.

Two diffs illustrate the problems: Millions Miller edit summary on Bucksburn Academy, "Like I said before only change info if you know lots or go to the school for the last time please" ; IP on IP talk page, "This information is true only edit if you go to the school or know someone who dose from know on".
 * They are certainly the same person, so block evasion.
 * After months of editing and many warnings and detailed advice on sourcing, they still ignore policy.
 * From two days ago, it's apparent that vandalism will continue.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

see Template:Source assess table

see Template:Source assess



so fuck you, Bitch...................................................................................................................................

A development
Current guidance:

Help:Getting started

Contributing to Wikipedia

Dos and don'ts

For the new editor that is going against the stream. Edits are reverted, warnings placed on the talk page, getting blocked for short periods. People are being mean (your WP editing is a very small part of who you are as a person, criticism does not mean that others are criticising you as a person)

Typical goals thwarted:
 * wanted to edit school's article to be "school's web page on Wikipedia"
 * wanted to edit town's article to be "town's web page on Wikipedia"
 * otherwise wanted to treat Wikipedia as social media (gossip, fan cruft, etc.)
 * wanted to change everything to the way it should be (latin words italicized, all references to "marijuana" replaced by "cannibis", all instances of "color" changed to "colour"
 * wanted to right great wrongs (when there is sometimes a proper way to do it)
 * wanted to add my personal first-hand knowledge to Wikipedia
 * wanted to add my expertise and education to Wikipedia
 * wanted to correct a biographical article (when there is sometimes a proper way to do it)

blocked? wanting to vandalise? go to The ultimate destination. can only take criticism personally? go to... know you are right, and don't have the time to read all the "rules", go here (direct to "congratulations... anybody should be able to edit, WP is a bureaucratic mess of policies, guidelines, etc.) know you are right, and don't have the time to listen to advice (direct to WP is a community with traditions, etc.) exerpt from KDBS talk page: (version )
 * (Hard to tell where anything begins and ends anymore)
 * To "IP": Though it seems rude to me, I'll address you as "IP" for now, because you've contributed under a few different addresses. Nothing wrong with that, but it does make it hard to figure out who's saying what, who's being addressed, and whether or not it's a different person, and where to provide feedback. There's a lot of feedback that's better addressed on an editor's talk page, so that it doesn't clutter up an article talk page with things that aren't relevant to the article itself. That said, I offer some recommendations to you, IP:


 * Register an account (see Why create an account?). At your level of involvement now, it would be good for you to enjoy the benefits, and it would make it easier for the Wikipedia community to interact. You will also be more anonymous (see: Wikipedia is anonymous).
 * Realise that advice from experienced editors is not a personal attack. Wikipedia is criticized for being run by a diverse group of cliques and reactionaries "Wikilawyering" to enforce a Byzantine, Kafkaesque mess of recommendations, guidelines and policies. This is most likely because Wikipedia harbours a diverse group of cliques and reactionaries "Wikilawyering" to enforce a Byzantine, Kafkaesque mess of recommendations, guidelines and policies. But it also includes new editors, who will help carry the project forward, hopefully.
 * Considering that, the advice to step back and "drop the stick" is wise. A new editor wanders into a culture that is already established, and has its own vision of Wikipedia, its own traditions, prejudices, and mores which have guided them well, in the past. Best not to rush. Best to slow down, listen and observe.
 * Being part of the Wikipedia cult cannot be learned by brief exposure to the lore. For instance, a "deletion review" refers to a process regarding deletion of entire articles, not deletion of content in an article. The and markup can be learned, but not how and when to use them in polite society.
 * Most important is to learn what the community thinks Wikipedia is. There are varied and conflicting opinions and beliefs. If you assume what it is, and rush headlong with that conception, you may find yourself running against the brick walls of tradition, eventually only to be blocked from editing.

I don't wish any of that to sound threatening or daunting, but that's the reality of it. You will endure by taking things slowly, by assuming not much more than good faith, and by listening quietly and carefully. Sincerely  signed, Willondon (talk)  03:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Refer to Cahoots

Scrolling results of a link
|background = |width     = |height    = |font_size = }}

-->
 * thanks granted by me:, which I should also get credit for, for being benevolent