User talk:General Ization

PLEASE READ

If I have nominated your article for deletion, removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

• WP:N (General Notability)
• WP:BIO (Person Notability)
• WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability)
• WP:WEB (Web Content Notability)
• WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons policies)

• WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability)
• WP:V (Verifiability)
• WP:RS (Reliable Sources)
• WP:COPY (Copyright)

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

If you can't be bothered to do any of this, please do not post on my page.

Hi there

Hello there. Just waving a "hi". I'm new on this site and ready to contribute. :) Fisherman099 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

google?

I think it is important for wikipedia to be the only search for the search term of * on google. If you go open a new tab and type (*), no article will come up. so i suggest that we make a page that will show up on the google search *. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepig12 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bluepig12: "*" (the asterisk character) is a delimiter and therefore cannot be used as a search term in Google. This fact is trivia, and not relevant at the article Asterisk. Nor can we change how Google handles "*". General Ization ^Talk 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

if you type in ** things will come up and google does not support search delimiters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepig12 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bluepig12: See [1]]: "Put a * in your word or phrase where you want to leave a placeholder. For example, 'largest * in the world'." General Ization ^Talk 16:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I explained my Adam Bilzerian edit in the edit space...Not an idiot

Hey bud,

I did explain my edit in the edit box. LOOK AGAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.175.111 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your stated reason for this edit, ("No sources provided") was invalid, as the content you removed is fully sourced in the existing citation. Stop disruptively editing or be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 12:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made perfectly good edits and have explained all of my reasoning, which is frankly valid. Please at any point respond on the actual merits. If not, where do I report abusive editors like you?

(96.246.175.111 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC))

You are free to submit a report at the Administrators noticeboard. First, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. General Ization ^Talk 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert my edit to "Annie Dookhan"

Dear sir, you provided no explanation whatsoever about your reversion of my edit, other than an unqualified blanket-statement naming it unconstructive.

It actually was constructive, since this perverse woman Annie Dookhan is first and foremost a criminal. That is what she is most notable at being. Her role as "chemist" is much less notable, and she didn't have an article before her criminality was discovered.

Right now this pig is out of jail, when concurrently thousands of innocent young men are imprisoned for exercising their own property rights and causing no harm.

Therefore this sickening criminal shall be noted as such. Please defend your action lest I opt to revert it myself.

173.162.159.145 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead of a biographical article is to explain why the subject is notable. Dookhan is not notable because she is now a convicted criminal. She is notable for her actions which are already explained in the lead, and which led to her conviction which is also discussed in the article. Also, please read WP:NPOV. It is clear from your comments that you are not capable of editing this article with a neutral point of view; I strongly suggest that you stop editing it. General Ization ^Talk 03:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Raiyan HA

Hello General Ization. I noticed you reverted a change made by this user as possibly unconstructive? As you can see from the user's contributions, they have been doing the same thing across other cricket player articles; that is changing the players' roles in their infoboxes. Since I'm not one for editing cricket articles, I'm not sure if I can handle reviewing these edits, but maybe you have a better idea of handling them than I can? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

John Jay

Thanks. For whatever reason my edits via the WP mobile app are sometimes awkward/malformed. That is – I see a minor edit problem, try to correct, and then discover the mobile app has mislead me. In the John Jay case the mobile app did not render the section and subsections correctly, and I thought I'd removed an empty section. This has happened twice now, so I'll tell app support about this problem. Also, the app will show me as "logged in" status-wise", but my edits are logged as IP edits. App support has not fixed that problem. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, the app didn't mislead you. A previous editor had apparently gotten confused about how to promote/demote section headings, and they were leading the sections they intended to include as subsections with a demoted header, which was left containing nothing. General Ization ^Talk 14:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

mediation request

I have sent a message to transporterman re this issue.

thankyou geoff