User talk:Willondon/Archives/2015 Jan - Jun

Marie Schrader

Are there any sources that you know of that can be used to edit the section on Marie Schrader in List of Breaking Bad characters? Thebuck093 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. To be honest, the character description seems pretty complete as it is. Sources for this sort of thing tend to be books, newspapers and magazines dealing with entertainment, critics, trade magazines, etc. In some cases, a lack of secondary sources can be overlooked if the work (TV series, here) speaks for itself. Willondon (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Patty and Selma

Why is the page still listed under the category "LGBT characters in animation" even though you undid the edit where I said Patty is a lesbian? Thebuck093 (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably a matter of timing. The Wikipedia software will need some time to process my reversal. I immediately reversed my edit, so it will be interesting to see if it remains in the category, or briefly is removed, then reinstated. With Wikipedia, patience is the key. Willondon (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Tenacious D link on Dave Grohl page

Since Dave Grohl is the drummer on every Tenacious D album, he has a strong link with the band. He is often even considered a full member of the band. I don't get why my addition of Tenacious D on the Dave Grohl page was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.30.122 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was reversed because of my ignorance and lack of research. In exchange for you correcting that, I've corrected the article. Willondon (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (film series)

I noticed you did revert an edit on the Zeitgeist (flim series) page. There is currently a discussion about what should go in the lede see Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Edit_war_discussion, input is welcome. Regards Jonpatterns (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Midas02

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your assistance so far. You are definitely not overstepping any boundaries, the edits you've made to my talk page are absolutely appropriate and welcome. As for our friend there, it seems that my venture into Wikipedia is a tricky one... first PIC and now him. He seems to edit exclusively disambiguation links and pages, and my guess would be that it makes him feel like the "master of that domain". I've been defending the disambiguation page for a bit now, since he's been force feeding that Aussie actor in there since yesterday, non-stop. My attempt at a conversation on his talk page was met with more hostility and threats. I'd love a bit of advice if possible. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

When @Midas02: said "I see no other option than to file a block request", I reflected on why when the best option is to do nothing, it is so often overlooked. (I can't tell you how many times I've kicked myself over that.) That might be your best option here, EauZen. Wikipedia will still be here next week, and any damage done in the mean time can be reversed easily. "Relax and take your time" is good advice for all editors.

Phrases like (and I leave you to figure out who said them in what context) "no party to a duel", "our friend there", "sabre has been getting rather rusty", "defending the page", are the talk of editors battling on the ground. They burn out quickly. They react minute by minute, providing the important edits that improve Wikipedia bit by bit. Yet the lasting change is guided by those who take their time to work at Wikipedia's pace.

I do want to give you more specific advice, but I have to think about this, so I'll have a more detailed reply for you later on. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being a talk page stalker, but I noticed these users have not stopped reverting each other since April 24 (look at the article history for James Jackson). During this two-week period, EauZenCashHaveIt has accumulated 26 reverts, and Midas02 has 25 reverts, with zero discussion. This needs to stop or they should both be reported. I messaged you because I noticed you closed the discussion about this at ANI. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. (Just for the record, another non-admin closed the issue (here) on ANI, saying "As requested". They didn't say which request, and I wouldn't characterize my comment as a request, but I can see where that may have been what they were referring to.) Anyway… yes, they're making quite a mess of the edit history there. I guess neither of them liked the "do nothing" option (not even a two day cease-fire in there). It's pretty common knowledge that talk pages are the place to resolve edit wars, so I don't know why people don't use them before it gets to ridiculous proportions like this. I've opened a discussion at Talk:James Jackson#Adding redlinks to disambiguation pages. Hopefully interested editors will find the discussion a lot more fun than watching the same edit get reverted for weeks on end. Willondon (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: If you read this very discussion from the top, you can see that I tried approaching Midas several times for a conversation, but for some reason he believes that I forfeited my right to be heard. I'm not even sure what this is. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@EauZenCashHaveIt: I regret that my advice to "do nothing" and "relax and take your time" has not proven useful to you. The great thing about that strategy is that you don't get chewed up by personal squabbles, either your own or someone else's. That's why I try to focus on the articles and the edits themselves. You're kinda harshing my mellow in that respect. Willondon (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: I am sorry, you are right. It is very hard to "curl up in the corner" when met by such hostility and repeated "pwning" attempts, and I hope you understand - especially considering the fact that I tried discussing this with Midas several times, only to be met with more hostility. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Thanks for the note - a wiki-weed is an unnecessary link - if you think it was useful then please revert; there was a spate of creating links for quite unnecessary links which cluttered up pages needlessly. KR Brookie :) { - like the mist, he's here and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 12:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Brookie: Thanks for the reply. I've taken the liberty of reinstating the link. I figure "skip school" is not a phrase you'd find in the dictionary, and many readers might not be familiar with it. (In my day, we they "played hooky".) I had a bit of a chuckle, too, because I'm just now trying to hack away some wikiweeds on the Archie Bunker article. [1]. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

(Note: this thread arose from my edit involving Caitlyn Jenner here [2] - Willondon)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Skyerise (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Rest assured I meant no disrespect to anybody. I'll look around for precedents before editing topics that are bound to be contentious and the subject of disruption. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens every time a notable transgender person comes out. Part of the intent of MOS:IDENTITY is that a transgender person for whom a name change is not really optional has the right to be credited for all their past accomplishments under their new name. I've added explanatory footnotes on the article you reverted me on which I hope resolves your concerns. Sorry if I am a bit free with the sanctions warning, but many of the people reverting seem to be doing so due to a discomfort with transgenderism, which results in their engaging in edit warring over it. (Not accusing you of this mind you, your response is quite positive). Skyerise (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

John Dadlez

You removed links I put on some old time radio show pages that showed where people could get free downloads of the shows. I'm just trying to push old time radio. Can I ask why you did it? 23:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdadlez (talk • contribs)

I removed them because they are link spam, intended to promote a site. I understand that you put plenty of work into those edits, and that the material is free, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. The policies are explained at Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Willondon (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are saying and I’m not trying to get in a war with you. You are the editor, you can do what you want. But could you tell me how my links are link spam and the other links to sites that give free show downloads are not link spam that promote a specific site? There are plenty of examples on the same pages that you edited mine from. Check out ‘Let's Pretend, The Bickersons, It Pays to Be Ignorant, Inner Sanctum Mystery, I Was a Communist for the FBI, I Love a Mystery,’ and the majority of the rest of the shows you removed me from. If I can change something that I’m doing to make you happy, let me know and I’ll try to do it. I don’t make money off of the site, I don’t have ad banners. The only other links I have are to two other sites that I work on. If you want me to remove them, I will. All I’m doing is promoting old time radio shows. I’ve done the site for over 12 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdadlez (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did feel a bit bad removing the links. I visited the Zoot Radio site, and I can see how much work you put into promoting old time radio. It's clear yours is a labour of love. But in the end, Wikipedia has its own goals, and promoting anything (websites, causes, interests, petitions, etc.) isn't one of them, so "All I'm doing is promoting old time radio shows" is at the heart of my reversions.

Re "tell me how my links are link spam and the other links to sites that give free show downloads are not link spam that promote a specific site": This is covered in WP:OTHERSPAM. I haven't looked, but they probably are link spam. Feel free to remove them if you think they detract from Wikipedia. Looking at your edit history, you are so far a single-purpose account (SPA). Practically all the edits are to add a link to ZR. In your dedication to promoting old time radio, I can see potential to improve Wikipedia, just not in the way you're currently editing. I recommend WP:Spam#How not to be a spammer, especially the paragraph on "Review your intentions". Where your interests align with Wikipedia's, that's great. In this case, they're not aligned.

Re "The only other links I have are to two other sites that I work on. If you want me to remove them, I will." Do what you think is right for Wikipedia. You'll note I haven't taken the time to remove all of the zootradio links you added. I chose a method that was easy for me to remove most of them. I've often been wrongly accused of having too much time on my hands, but if I'd taken the time to hunt down every last link, I fear I might come to believe it myself.

I also consider that each article has its watchers. It's not my job to thoroughly cleanse Wikipedia. Maybe the remaining links are an improvement if nobody reverts them for a while. I'm willing to put my faith in the statistical nature of how myriad editors keep improving Wikipedia. I just hope that, going forward, you edit knowing that Wikipedia has goals that may not align with your own, and that you consider contributing your obvious knowledge in ways that do. Willondon (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Rollback

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help no matter what. If you are in fact in London, we need help even more WP:RCP help that time zone. Regards– Gilliam (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm five hours behind Greenwich. I do shift work, though, so my Wikitime is all over the map. I'll consider looking into WP:RCP. Thanks. Willondon (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(one month later...)

I'd like to take you up on your offer to remove the rollback tool, Gilliam. Having tried it, it's not for me. Thanks for your trust, but in my hands, the risk of accidental damage outweighs its value as a tool. Even when reverting vandalism, for the few edits I make without comment, it's not worth it.

Without the tool, I undo edits manually, which gives me time for reflection. For editors that correct a much larger volume of vandalism at a faster pace than I do, this single-click power is surely a benefit, but for me, it's too sharp a tool to be carrying around. Willondon (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. I can understand your concerns. Should you change your mind, let me know.– Gilliam (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)