User talk:Willondon/Archives/2015 Oct - Dec

From 2606:A000:486E:5A00:BDE1:F1C6:D85A:9343
Thanks for the info in such a way. It seems to have worked for me like this. What about you? But also much more importantly, where is your next gig? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:486E:5A00:BDE1:F1C6:D85A:9343 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Slaughter at Altamont
1. Hunter was not merely stabbed to death, but was also severely beaten up before and after the stabbing which is why he brandished the gun in the first place; 2. not one shot was fired on Dec 6. AlterBerg (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I continued discussion at Talk:Mick Jagger -- Willondon (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Police – "Tea in the Sahara"
I'm not the IP who made the edit, but I do understand why he/she altered the track length – if you go to Amazon, iTunes, Spotify, wherever, you will see that the track is indeed listed as being 4:19 long... this is because although the song itself is 4:11 long, as currently stated in the Synchronicity article, there are eight seconds of silence tacked on to the end of it before "Murder by Numbers" starts on the CD. So the edit was actually made in good faith, referring to the track length listed online at various sources. Perhaps the track length should be listed as 4:19, and then a note underneath the track listing stating that the song itself is only 4:11. Anyway, not that important: I'm more concerned with finding out the actual release date, as I've said on the talk page. Hopefully when I'm back in the UK in December and able to visit the British Library I can get some contemporary reviews from music press and newspapers to bolster the critical reception section. Richard3120 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I see now that the edit was likely correct. I get suspicious when an editor (the IP, here) makes only one kind of change across a number of different articles, like changing track lengths. I also take into account whether the edit is an addition or a change. If it's a change, where did the previous version come from? Has it been wrong from the beginning? Why? Unfortunately, vandalism by making little changes to data, dates and statistics is a thing.


 * On one of the changes, where I actually had the CD in question, the change matched the jacket info, so I didn't bother checking the rest of their edits. I didn't restore my other reversions, though, because in the end, the edits were unsourced and unexplained. Anyway, thanks again, and best of luck in your research. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know exactly where you're coming from... you get an unidentified IP and an edit with no summary, and your immediate thought is vandalism... it's sometimes hard to tell straight away if the edit was in good faith or not. But if it's in good faith, I don't like to scare away potential editors... Wikipedia could certainly do with more of them. Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I harbour no prejudice against IP edits, explained or otherwise (see WP:IPs are human too). It's just that "fiddle vandalism" is a thing, so because of others' poor behaviour, an unsourced, unexplained edit from any contributor, registered or not, is vulnerable to suspicion. Willondon (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

From Anon the User
Hello, I'm Anon the User. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent contribution to Charlie Brown, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. (A.U (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you refer to this edit here. I think you made a mistake. I explained at Talk:Charlie_Brown. Willondon (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks. Willondon (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a deadlink!
Guess you prefer the giant red lines! -- MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  10:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you refer to the edit here. My apologies. I copy and pasted the URL incorrectly, so I got a "page not found" error when I checked it. I redid the correction by removing the name, instead of changing the link to match the other instance of the name. The original page on "Virtue Ethics" is the one that mentions "do unto others". Willondon (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I can't stand those giant red lines, and glad that you took the time to check into it to fix it properly. Thanks! -- MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  16:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Creationism
You likely know, but just an FYI - a discussion is in progress on Talk:Creationism regarding the lede wording. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hip hop editing
Yes it frustrates me when I find someone changing Big Ls legacy because if you look it up, all that stuff is true. Like eminem did give a tribute to Big L on Like toy soldiers the music video buys someone changed that and i put that back. Thank you Rogelioorrelana (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously
A good faith attempt to contribute. It's just Wikipedia: Avoid editing wars. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, . Somebody is commenting that a post to ANI was, for them, unable to sustain interest long enough for them to finish reading it. That they posted at all shows an initial interest that was thwarted. The comment is not as erudite or expansive as one might hope, but I hesitate to stifle good faith attempts to contribute. Especially on WP:ANI, I think it's important to preserve the record of discussion, without judgement, and to expunge only those posts that are clearly destructive. Willondon (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was no discussion. It was a put-down from someone who couldn't bother to log in to their earlier account or to create an account. Or, by your account, someone with way too short an attention span to be hanging out in a place where important decisions are made, decisions to ban or block, for instance. ANI is a place for thoughtful discussion--or it ought to be--and shitty remarks like that in lazy internet verbiage contribute nothing whatsoever. It's bitey, it's non-collaborative. Why you would restore that twice is beyond me. If you're so convinced this was some kind of good-faith effort, why don't you go to their talk page to welcome them and explain to them that at least one administrator, someone who is called on to take action at the administrators noticeboard, thought their remark was insulting? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that I've erred in your considered opinion. I won't comment on the matter any further. Willondon (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Succinct (is this happening more and more?)
I happen to agree with your sentiment, e.g.
 * "Manya and Isaac" -> "Isaac and Manya"
 * "grandmother" -> "grandma"
 * "three friends" -> "3friends" (really!)

I've noticed this blathering and mindless substitution of words and phrases more than a couple times recently. Is this indeed happening more frequently?

Is this the Wikipedia version of Williams syndrome?
 * When children with Williams syndrome are asked to name an array of animals, they may well list such a wild assortment of creatures as a koala, saber-toothed cat, vulture, unicorn, sea lion, yak, ibex and "Brontosaurus", a far greater verbal array than would be expected of children with IQs in the 60s.

So how does one suggest to an 'editor' they should crank up their 'inhibition'? :) Shenme (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, . Thanks for your note, which prompted an interesting read of the Williams syndrome article. Is the blathering and mindless substitution of words and phrases indeed happening more frequently? Allow me to return the favour with a link to the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. I think it's always been a problem, and you're just noticing it more consistently now.


 * How to suggest cranking up the inhibitions? There's probably not a good way to do that. I'm happy to revert such edits one by one, with the comment "not an improvement". Maybe with time, an editor will reform or recuse themselves under the weight of repeated reversals by the community. I'm a firm believer in the emergent nature of Wikipedia's power. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)