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!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For taking the extra step and helping these possibly confused editors. Thanks! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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#New York Times description). 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)

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.<ref>Wikipedia:IP editors are human too</ref>{{cn|reason=unreliable source}}. _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? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 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?) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 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)