User talk:General Ization

Please use this page to contact me regarding any entries I have created or edited.

Please don't remove dead links this way

Hey. Please don't just remove dead links from articles as you did in this edit. Either replace the dead link with a live one, add a link to an archived version of the original link, or replace the cited source with another source that includes the same information. When you just remove the link, it makes it harder for other editors to fix it in the future. Thanks! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

TrustPlus

People with WP:COI kept removing the db tags which is why it was not speedy deleted before. Eventually someone ended up creating an AfD. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood, I was watching. However, once the Afd is created, {{db}} is no longer an option. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

2004 numbers

Hi, the Haaretz article looks a solid source to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupamassive (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When Haaretz says that 848 mortar shells and 377 Qassam rockets were fired at Israel in 2005, it does not support the claim that "1225 rockets were fired at Israel in 2005". It supports the statement that 848 mortar shells and 377 Qassam rockets were fired at Israel in 2005, and that is what the article now states. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice

That I had just added a sentence on the organization? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Have adjusted the text slightly to be more specific to the ref in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Crossword public library report

Sorry to trouble you. I made use of your fine article about the cross word puzzle. I wanted to see the report you referred to. It was online, and it was then I noticed the year of reporting is 1924, published 1925 Here's the link to prove it. https://archive.org/stream/reportnewyorkpu00librgoog#page/n440/mode/2up The publication is a collection of reports starting 1921. Yours sincerely Harry Stalknecht,Hastalknecht (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Netherlands

Yes, I concede the point. It appears that the scanned copy (at archive.org and at Google books) was a binding together of the 1921 through 1925 reports, and I was mis-navigating the Google Books online copy. However, please fully update the citation also, as right now it describes the 1924 Library Report as being published in 1922. Also, what was the basis for changing the publication date in the body of the Claire Briggs comic strip in the Morning Oregonian to 1925? That is clearly dated at October 3, 1922 in its reference. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the revert on Sabina Altynbekova

All are certainly Wikipedia:Reliable sources all are Mainstream newspapers. Are you trying to push a 3RR fight ? TeddyTesseract (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The External links section is not intended for a random selection of news articles concerning the subject of the article. The links you added could potentially be used as references to specific statements about the subject in the body of the article that are not already present or adequately cited, but EL should not be used as a corkboard to post a collection of links to media. See WP:EL. Your comment about 3RR is rather silly, since we are talking about a single revert, and your edit was clearly against Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should review the meaning of the term edit warring.Dwpaul ^Talk 13:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

question

hey does the picture from wikipedia when you search something on google change ? it has been updated on the wikipedia page but the old picture still remains on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sup8899 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume there is some delay until Google's SE robot crawls the site and refreshes its cached copy. I don't expect it would be very long, however. When was the photo updated? 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Google's cached copy is from Aug 4, 2014 15:26:56 UTC and shows the latest image. I don't know how often Google refreshes images used for the featured Wikipedia result in the sidebar, however. You'd need to ask Google. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

However, it seems you committed a copyright violation by placing that photo here and it has now been removed. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Forrest S. Mozer

Forrest S. Mozer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Dwpaul,

I received a message from you that we edited Forrest Mozer's wiki page but did not cite a reliable source. The source is our company, Sensory Inc. Forrest Mozer and his son, Todd, who is currently the CEO, are founders of the company. I am the marketing communications manager for the company. If you need any further "reliable" sources please let me know, but I don't know who could be more reliable than the actual company that he founded.

Regards, Shirley Ng (Sngsensoryinc is my user name on wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sngsensoryinc (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sngsensoryinc: That is not what reliable sources means in the context of Wikipedia. It is not what you know or the quality of your knowledge that is important, but whether readers of the article can independently verify the information in the article. Under Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy, any information that is potentially controversial or subject to challenge that does not include a cited source is subject to immediate removal. Click on the several highlighted links in this reply to review those policies. And please sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes after your final comment. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Wikipedia

Hi there who chooses the picture that shows up when someone searches something in google? A box with A WikiPEdia description comes up and a picture but where is the picture from and how chooses it?? Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sup8899 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture (if any) should be the picture in the Infobox. See Wikipedia:GOOGLECACHE. If that doesn't resolve the issue, I don't know what to tell you. No one at Wikipedia manages the pictures displayed in Google searches. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Stevie May

For your information Stevie May was actually Hungerhill School Top Scorer so please revert my page back to Normal ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke6black (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Not without a cited source for the information. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit of Garrick article.

The chief executive is no longer there anymore. That's why it was edited. Stephenbhatia (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stephenbhatia: That may well be, but unless accompanied by a citation of reliable source that verifies that information, it will not appear on Wikipedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 11:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski‎

I see that you have been editing Emily Ratajkowski‎ recently. Since you are interested in the article, I thought I would inform you that it is at WP:GAN and could use a review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bucksham Co-operative

Thank you for launching this investigation. Am I supposed to have vandalized any article? If so could you please cite the instance, thank you. Gumbor (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I will leave it to the Checkuser to determine your relationship, if any, to the other accounts of interest in this investigation. That is their function. Your editing history does reflect some common behavior, and more than coincidental timing, to that of at least one of those accounts. If they determine that there is no relationship, then you have nothing to be concerned about, do you? Dwpaul ^Talk 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right there. But still, you're a fucking bastard. Gumbor (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the behavioral evidence I've compiled on the page, it's clear to me that Gumbor is a sock of the master account. I've blocked the user and semi-protected the page for a week to help stem these problems. Mike V • Talk 07:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much ... I meant not to disturb you when I figured out you were probably offline for the evening, but I guess there's no way to un-{{mention}}, huh? Appreciate your help. Dwpaul ^Talk 12:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

regarding 'Cullen'

Hi...regarding unsourced material...firstly the existing page for Cullen does not cite any proof for the connection with other surnames, nor its origins, or where the information was obtained...just a map showing former distribution of the name in Ireland and a claim it MAY be linked to Cullinane. Secondly, my surname is Cullen and i live in the Wicklow mountains...the heartland of this name for centuries. It is well known here that the name derives from the Irish for holly tree 'cuileann'. Wicklow and surrounding counties are still the stronghold for my surname and place names associated with it. The other surnames are virtually unknown in this part of Ireland and their similarity is probably coincidental.. their origins being from similar sounding Irish Gaelic words. Cullinane for example may have derived from 'cuil an abhainn', Collins from 'coileann'. The majority of websites seem to repeat one another and have confused not only Irish surnames and their origins, but also confused Cullen with Scottish first names such as Colin. This seems mainly an American phenomenon, where Irish surnames have been adopted as first names. So regarding 'sources'... It has become somewhat of a bug bear for many of us to see websites get what Irish scholars and Irish Cullens know wrong...we Wicklow Cullens should know and i hope you can correct the page 😉. Many thanks Ollie Cullen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwireland (talk • contribs) 07:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wwireland: You could well be correct about the origins of the Cullen name. Unfortunately, it is not what you know or the quality of your knowledge that is important, but whether readers of the article can independently verify the information you add to the article. That the existing information was not well sourced is beside the point – you removed it and replaced it with completely unsourced information. The burden is on those adding or changing information to provide reliable sources that support the changes. Unless you can specifically disprove it or show conclusively that its sources are invalid, you should never remove sourced information from articles even if you disagree with it. As I suggested in my edit summary, at most you should add an alternative explanation (if and only if you can provide citations). Click on the several highlighted links in this reply to review these policies. Dwpaul ^Talk 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Consider discussing these changes and your concerns with other editors on the article's Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy in Portland article

It is unhelpful to specify Portland as the largest city by population in Oregon since it is the largest in every other measure as well. There is no measure by which it is not the largest. By later saying that it is the third highest population in the region after Vancouver and Seattle, all of the information is available to know with certainty that there cannot be any other city in Oregon with larger population, and thus the first sentence's "largest" statement must at least be valid for population but probably by other measures as well (which is true). If we add "by population" to the first sentence, it implies that it is not the largest by other measures, which would be false. I returned it to just saying "the largest" without the qualifier. The current version has no ambiguity whatsoever and reads clearly to anyone. I'm just writing to you to explain thoroughly and avoid back and forth editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backfromquadrangle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Backfromquadrangle: This is a discussion of the content of a Wikipedia article, hence belongs on the article's Talk page where other editors will have the opportunity to participate in this discussion and perhaps achieve consensus. This (using the article's Talk page) is the proper way to "avoid back and forth editing". Moved there and if and when I reply, I will reply there. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I clicked "talk" next to the edit and it brought me here. Is there a good way to make a talk item specifically connected to an edit so it is easy to reference? I'm not that experienced here. Appreciate the help, thanks Backfromquadrangle (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)