Please put new topic messages at the bottom of the page.
If you posted here and expect a reply, look for it here.

hello Im sorry for the inconvenience but can you delete (Leon Angel) page on Wikipedia.

This is my maternal great grandfather and he is Egyptian Greek Jewish actor and used to be called Chalom and my father and family are asking me to hide his identity or keep it private and if you don’t mind deleting it or putting it in draft section.

I’ve tried many times to edit - delete on it but didn’t worked out.

sincerely, Olmenfun (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

I don't have the power to delete pages. That's usually done by proposing it in Articles for deletion (see WP:BEFORE), then there's a discussion open to all editors (yourself included). But you would have to have a good reason to delete it. Unfortunately, requests from relatives or others associated with the subject are not usually accepted as valid. Probably the most common successful reason is that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (see WP:GNG). To count as notable enough for an article, a subject must have "significant coverage" in secondary sources. I note the article references a number of secondary sources. I don't have the expertise to evaluate them as reliable or not, and I didn't read them, but I see that your great grandfather's name is not mentioned in any of the source titles; rather, they mention director "Togo Mizrahi". So it might be argued that, regarding Leon Angel, they are just passing mentions in sources that are not focussing on him, and thus don't count as significant coverage.

I strongly recommend presenting your problem at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. That will put you in touch with a wider range of helpful editors who have more experience than I, and a broader field of viewpoints and expertise. Hope that helps. _signed, Willondon () 20:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Ok then, if you can’t try to delete it can you change his name page and name on it to Shalom only on all his page and we don’t want his real name to be publicly published for everyone.

its already his name not added to the other Wikipedia languages pages.

thanks, Olmenfun (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

I didn't understand much of what you said. I am just an editor here. What you are asking is something that would be done with discussion and consensus from the wider community, or by an administrator. Again, I strongly recommend presenting the issue at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. _signed, Willondon () 21:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

I know there's COI, and I'm with you on the sourcing issues but just a heads up that you're at or approaching 3RR on Langley Blaze. Just an FYI since I know it's sometimes easy to lose track...hopefully if you see me in a similar situation in the future you'll let me know too :) Take care -tony 22:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the heads up. I was losing track. And I certainly will. When I see one editor handling a situation on the brink, I often make a revert myself, to show my support, and to break up the string of reverts from one editor. Plus, I forgot "It's just Wikipedia. It can wait." Unless it's a serious BLP violation, Wikipedia will be unharmed if I wait until tomorrow to make corrections. Thanks again. _signed, Willondon () 22:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[]

"conflates the topic with the word". The current lead risks defining a longstanding human behavior rather than the modern term itself. While improving one’s physical attractiveness is not a new phenomenon, looksmaxxing is a 21st-century internet-derived neologism with specific cultural and subcultural associations. Defining it simply as “the process of maximizing one’s own physical attractiveness” conflates the general practice with the recent label, and may therefore be anachronistic. An encyclopedic lead should distinguish between both in my opinion. Looksmaxxing is just tied extensively to a 21st-century subculture and I wanted to emphasize that. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I assume reference to my edit here [1]. Now that I've considered, I think you're right about that. _signed, Willondon () 21:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello, I'm curious about how the content of my edit could be considered "self-sourced promotional content"

Would you care to explain? - Night archive (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I assume reference to my edit here [2]. The content is sourced to the "Ames Community School District" itself (primary sourced, i.e. self-sourced). It states programs offered, which is the sort of thing appropriate to a school brochure or website. There's no reliable secondary source to indicate that the information is noteworthy, and suitable for an encyclopedia. _signed, Willondon () 14:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[]

"Unsourced" when the other genres are unsourced too, you power hungry fuck ~2026-46550-0 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Bald ass landwhale ~2026-21089-12 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I notice you've had run-ins with both User:Happywikimember and User:Publicmember. I suspect these are accounts of the same LTA, along with User:Justician22 and User:REECED1.

Associated characteristics:

• Persistently (but not exclusively) targets topics related to inheritance law (trusts, joint ownership, wills, family relationships). Trust (law) and Trustee are particular targets.
• Reworks the leading definition of a subject profoundly at odds with available scholarship.
• Rewrites articles that have broad and international relevance to focus on the US, California, and the specific context of inheritance.
• Utterly oblivious the need for sourcing. Warnings that sources are required are met with argumentation or mere insistence.
• When warned on his talk page, posts successive replies under one another.

If you think this information might be useful for catching this editor in the future, perhaps it could be listed on the LTA page. ~2026-79235-7 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the advice. I'm not familiar with the LTA page. _signed, Willondon () 20:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, the page that lists vandals who have returned repeatedly with a known pattern of editing. ~2026-79235-7 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi @Willondon,

Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to thank you (I'm sure you don't get that often on your talk given what I read above) for pointing me in the right direction with regards to Jemima Goldsmith. I genuinely did not fully read that specific section in WP:BLPNAME until now (I only skimmed it). Thank you for your help -- I'll try to remember it! Avishai11 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the thanks. Whenever I point readers to that guideline, it's usually regarding non-notable children. And I know the section goes on at length about other situations, then tacks on the children part at the end; so I always wonder if they got the reference. I'm glad you didn't tldr. Cheers. _signed, Willondon () 01:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[]

While I would agree with your instructions, if it were a true biography page, I disagree when the person is using the Biography moniker to cover publishing of his & his family's criminality.

The references you want added are withheld court records ~2026-21089-12 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I assume reference to my edit here [3], edit summary: "unsourced in WP:BLP". I don't think you'll ever convince the Wikipedia community that the article isn't a biography of a living person. And a person can't use their article to cover up publishing of anything; the article is curated by Wikipedia volunteers, guided by the policies, an important policy here being that content in a BLP, especially contentious content, cannot be added without a reliable secondary source. Given that, your personal feelings and analyses aside, content such as you added will never get consensus unless you can point to a reliable secondary source that has made note of it. If the only thing available is withheld court records, then there's no way a reader can verify the information. _signed, Willondon () 14:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi @Willondon!

You statement at a recent AFD (regarding WP:NACTOR ) was .."that guideline says "may be considered notable if...", not that they are non-notable for lack thereof.", and I couldn't agree more.

Such conversations often come up at discussions and on many occasions there's no emphasis laid on Wikipedia:GNG and the principle of notability. Do you mind if I re-use your statement at AfDs? I personally find it to be the simplest way of putting the principle across.

Thanks! Retro music11 (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Go right ahead. The simplest way might be "that guideline says if not iff"; but the other is probably clearer. Cheers. _signed, Willondon () 20:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you kindly! Retro music11 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]