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.

A barnstar for you!

 * Why thank you very much! I hate doing good work when nobody's looking.  signed, Willondon (talk)  20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for the reply about my so-called "vandalism." As it happens, that "editor" has been banned from editing already. Gidtanner (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is strong evidence of PAID editing
There is strong evidence of PAID editing in my edit that you reverted. However, as it would involve "outing", I won't share the information here. That being said, I agree with your subsequent reversion in that the material removed should be removed. My initial revert was solely due to the clear PAID violation. I think that's clear! Thanks - MarcGarver (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I didn't say there wasn't strong evidence. I said the evidence wasn't apparent (to me). But you're right not to divulge if it requires "outing"; which leaves us to judge edits without considering COI issues. To be honest, I personally don't respond to COI editing as strictly as Wikipedia's constitution might demand. I rarely call it out unless there has been specific confession of a relationship (or if someone calls me out for being biased: my favourite instance Talk:Connie Han). I find in most cases, COI is fairly obvious, and in any case, there are usually other policies and practices which can be used to refute the edits. Thanks again for your note. Cheers.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * yes i can do it 103.118.78.220 (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Jewish history
Thanks. That was sheer vandalism, especially in the context of their other edits. They are on a spree of removing Jewish sources. They have come back after a break, a lot of their earlier edits are bad. I’m not sure they’ve had enough warnings to block but I’m too exhausted to be sure. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sauble Beach postal code
I was just looking at my old contributions and noticed I made a helpful addition in 2022 that you immediately reverted "unsourced, unexplained addition to postal code". I just put it back. Here's my source: List of postal codes of Canada: N. Do I need to add an explanation too? Try not to assume the worst of IP editors, thanks. 50.72.215.179 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't regard IP edits as inherently suspect; I assume the edits will be an improvement. Most IP edits are positive contributions.  .   signed, Willondon (talk)  21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Willondon. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Syllable article
Regarding this edit to the syllable article - how do you read five consonants in /æŋsts/? I understand that some dialects may pronounce the /k/, but then the example should be changed to include that as well, as the original example which you reinstated seems contradictory? -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I took "consonant" to mean a letter, rather than a consonant sound; thus N-G-S-T-S, five. Since "syllable" and "rime" refer to speech sounds, I can see where it's somewhat muddy, as N-G manifests as a single sound, /ŋ/. This is what happens when you smash German and Norman French together, centuries before the printing press can straighten things out. In my opinion, English suffers from many poor design choices. Anyway, if you want to switch it to four, I won't revert it again.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. I don’t want to sound argumentative, but for the future, please note that it is not really “muddy” in this context - the discussion is about phonotactic rules which have nothing at all to do with letters or orthography in English (which you’re right - is super weird! But an interesting insight into how we used to pronounce words at the time of standardisation) I don’t know how familiar you are with phonetics, and it can be confusing to native English speakers who are unfamiliar, but /ŋ/ is unequivocally a single phoneme. (Also I’m not sure where you got German from, do you mean the Germanic language family?) -- NotC hariza rd  🗨 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not very knowledgable about phonetics, but I did allow above that N-G manifests as a single sound, /ŋ/. Yes, by "German" I meant the Germanic language family.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for nice edit in English language
Thanks for reverting this: The key areas of phonetics include articulatory phonetics, acoustic phonetics, auditory phonetics and phonetic transcription. It's not original research, or any sort of research, really, just a brief non-explanatory list of aspects of the field of phonetics. I thank you because it was irrelevant in that text. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

False allegations
It a disruption to call a government censor a censor, bro? How? It is a disruption to falsely claim that a government censor is a civil servant. A servant serves. A censor tells other people what they're allowed to say and uses force to expropriate their assets or throw them in jail if they don't comply. Calling this sort of thing service is like putting a bunch of rusty nails in a can of coke and calling it a milkshake. People know what reality is. If you want to spread lies and misinformation on Wikipedia, people will stop reading it. Or eventually, you will lose you position to someone with a bit more credibility. We are going to go back to calling this censor a censor. That is what she is. I would looooove to see anybody attempt to argue otherwise with a straight face. —96.59.79.27 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Alas, wiki collaboration is largely a written affair. Otherwise you'd see that my face is quite unstraight now, and it's not from the comical absurdity of any argument I might make. Wikipedia accepts reliable sources in argument, and doesn't really digest morally outraged screed very well. I'll take the time to say goodbye now, in case I'm not here for your retirement party.  signed, Willondon (talk)  12:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (For the record, a reference to the source of this exchange. }  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

notability
You cannot revert my changes due to lack of wikipedia notability because then i will never get Wikipedia notability. This means new and upcoming editors for wikipedia can not join the editing comunity as people like you gate keep it. 2A02:C7C:7533:A500:8C4F:4497:3195:E1B (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume reference to this edit here, where I reverted your addition to "Notable staff" which had the edit summary "added the best teacher ever". You cannot revert my changes due to lack of wikipedia notability is a clearly absurd statement, since you are addressing the revert that I made; I assume from this that "Alevel Further Mathematics"  does not offer any teaching on topics dealing with logic. Re because then i will never get Wikipedia notability, when you say I do you mean to say that you are both the staff member added as notable, and the one who added "the best teacher ever"? I shouldn't have to explain why that sort of addition is rejected by Wikipedia. This means new and upcoming editors for wikipedia can not join the editing comunity As a new editor, you've already joined the community, and nobody stopped you; I don't know what "upcoming [or up and coming?] editor" means. as people like you gate keep it Of course we do; that's the whole idea of a community with a developing tradition of policies and guidelines: the content is curated by crowd-sourced application of those policies. Joining the community doesn't mean you become a member of an unruly crowd that has everybody adding things with disregard to any kind of guidance. You've misunderstood "Wikipedia notability", I think; it means that items in "Notable" lists require that the item have its own article in Wikipedia, to establish notability as Wikipedia sees it. I must say, when it comes to logic, this whole exchange gives credence to the common description of those who teach.   signed, Willondon (talk)  20:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I can do whatever I want
i used to be called shallom Adepoju but now I added my middle name Shallom B Adepoju (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If I could do whatever I wanted, I'm not sure I'd spend much time posting to Wikipedia talk pages. I can't decide if yours is an imagination full of unbounded fantasy, or the most feckless failure of imagination I've ever seen. Perhaps both at once. (See also: Shallom adepoju, apparently.)  signed, Willondon (talk)  02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikicookie - Adam Rowe
Nice catch. Beat me to it. I was about to revert that myself. MM (Give me info.)  (Victories)  15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand?
My editing is quite enough, you who think you are an expert. Whoever gave you this authority, how can I get this authority? Erich rommel (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Other wikis, especially Fandom, are not Reliable Sources. Q  T C 20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So what resources do I place that will make the edit permanent? Erich rommel (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)