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.

Recent reversals

Dear, thanks for sharing your below wisdom, which I will take to heart henceforth. I can't help translating it to "if others want to add needless junk, above all let them do so".

<quote=General Ization> Ask yourself the three things you must always ask yourself before you say anything.

   1) “Does this need to be said?”
   2) “Does this need to be said by me?”
   3) “Does this need to be said by me now?”

</quote> Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User 2600:8805:9200:19F0:611C:E34B:333C:F634 content deletion

Hello. As advised by the Help Desk, I was in the process of reverting a number of unexplained content deletions by this user. I was also supposed to use appropriate templates to explain my actions. Upon visiting the talk page just now I found that you are already working on this. So I will take no further action lest we start to collide. Let me know if I should do something else; I'm completely inexperienced at this. Larrydberg (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

disclosing your employer

You gave me this warning, but I'm not affiliated with the page I was editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmwiki0403 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Msmwiki0403: That's fine; since your first and thus far only edits in article space were at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, it was reasonable to ask you to disclose any connection. However, the article may have been edited by others with such a connection; do not remove the template notice concerning this from the page header. Also please note the other maintenance templates I have added, which mostly refer to issues with the edits you have made to that article. General Ization ^Talk 20:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Esham

The sources already cited say that he was born Rashaam Attica Smith and released the first album at 13. Esham's fan base is just ridiculously stupid and has been vandalizing the article for over a decade. 166.182.82.188 (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Look at the sources. YOU are adding unsourced content. 166.182.82.188 (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See these sources already cited in the article.

Yes, AllMusic is the most reliable -- and your edits directly contradict it. General Ization ^Talk 02:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

https://www.google.com/search?q=rashaam+attica+smith&client=ms-android-uscellular-us&prmd=mniv&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjtvn5wLvbAhVLAqwKHVszCz0Q_AUIDygG&biw=320&bih=443

A Google search is not a reliable, published source. This is. General Ization ^Talk 02:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those are several reliable sources in published books, including Allmusic guides.

Also for age 13: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/BTTL_eshamboominwords.html https://www.popmatters.com/esham-sacrificial-lambz-2496137389.html http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/jul/05/the_d_in/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.82.188 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

None of which are known to be reliable sources. I'm not buying it, but it isn't just me you have to convince. At this point, if you make the change again without establishing consensus on the article's Talk page for it, you will be blocked (and note that others have tried but not been successful, for the same reason). General Ization ^Talk 02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about your revisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did you revert three of my revisions on User talk:Kavrocks88 (removing the heading that I added and removing my post entirely)? You also removed Ad Orientem’s (an administrator) heading. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: Because a) your level 3 warning was irrelevant, as the user had already received a level 4 warning and was queued to be blocked (and was blocked when you attempted to restore it); and the heading under which all previous warnings and the block notice were posted were just fine without your addition to the Talk page. There is no need to include the day of the month in the heading (and in fact it is best to not do so, as warnings are cumulative by the month, not the day -- your format will especially confuse ClueBot). General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I was going to warn the user before you did. Even if it were redundant, I’m fairly certain you can’t just remove my post (WP:TPO). I also don’t think you can remove the heading to someone’s post. You removed the heading to the post of an administrator. I did not add that heading. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think it's important, bring it up at WP:ANI. Personally, I don't think it's worth either of our time to do so. General Ization ^Talk 22:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? I just wish to re-add my post. WP:TPO doesn’t cover removing someone else’s post because it’s “irrelevant.” Could I please re-add my post and the heading that you removed? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And what is the point of that? (And do you understand why adding a heading that includes the day of the month causes problems for the vandal-reverting bot and other automation?) General Ization ^Talk 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The point is simply that I didn’t ask for you to remove my post.

Anyway, I’m not aware of how headings cause problems for bots. Could you explain? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are an active editor, occasionally you will find that your edits and posts are removed in the process of making constructive edits. It's best not to take it personally, and not to insist on restoring them unless you can provide a constructive reason to do so. When a vandal has already received a final (Level 4) warning, it's not especially constructive to give them another level 3. As for the problem with your header, the bot looks for a month heading (without a day, as it would include) to determine what level of warning it should issue to the user. When it sees the header with the day, it starts over again at level 1, even if the user has already received 3 warnings prior to that one. General Ization ^Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My post was not vandalism or spam, nor was it disruptive, and its removal doesn’t seem to fall under WP:TPO. Redundancy never hurt anyone on a talk page.

Also, the heading that you removed was Ad Orientem’s, not mine. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. Do what you like. If you think Ad Orientem should be upset about my removal of their heading, you're welcome to talk with them about it, though they may try to explain to you exactly what I have just tried to explain. I won't spend more time on it. General Ization ^Talk 22:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not upset. I was just confused as to why you removed an administrator’s heading. I assumed that you thought I added it. I don’t think that the talk page guidelines allows one to remove someone else’s heading over their own post unless it’s vandalism or spam, and I also think that it is a bit difficult to read a talk page when there are posts without headings, but I will not re-add Ad Orientem’s heading.

I have, however, re-added my post to the talk page. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the standard template warnings accumulated by a given editor on their Talk page during a given month, whether issued by a bot or by a human, should generally be grouped under a single heading, consisting of the month and the year (without a day). Each warning should not have its own heading if one for that month already exists (and I wonder where you have seen warnings that do). If another editor has a notice or comment other than standard warnings for an editor, those should of course have their own descriptive heading. General Ization ^Talk 22:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not know that ClueBot NG gives warnings depending on the headings. I often see warnings with headings using the month and year. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with the month and year; not DMY or MDY. The MY heading is added automatically by the bot (or by editors using automation, such as Twinkle) in the course of issuing the warning if they do not find one as the last heading on the page. If they find an existing MY heading as the last heading, they do not add a new one. General Ization ^Talk 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove Ad Orientem’s heading, which only had the month and year, then? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 22:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the only reason the additional heading was added when AO added the block notice was because of your intervening edit with the non-conforming header that confused the automation. When your edit (and the extra heading) was removed, all of the notices appeared under the single MY heading. It should be clear from AO's comments below that they have no issue with it. Now, can we both go do something more useful? General Ization ^Talk 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused. Ad Orientem added the heading himself/herself. How did my unrelated revisions affect anything? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Guys... really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to keep pinging me to the discussion. I am aware of it, and trying very hard to ignore it. Is there really nothing more constructive that could occupy your time? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I won’t ping you again. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• No worries. I appreciate that you are both working hard to improve the project. But this discussion does seem to have dragged on a bit. The user is blocked. Is there anything else that really needs to be said? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:小李子上 follow-up (Speedy deletion nomination of Draft talk:南昌办证 搜狐教育)

See meta:Special:Diff/18128887. Regards, -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 18:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dylan O’Brien “partner” section remove

The information is not inaccurate. They separated just because there’s no media graphic source doesn’t mean it’s not true! Lisarobrien (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDHT. You are straining our patience and are likely to be blocked if you continue. General Ization ^Talk 15:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

LHS

I am sorry that I added information without referencing sources. I can tell you that I am not messing around and the nicknames are actual things that students call the schools, but unfortunately there are no sources I could find on the subject that would support it so that will have to go, which is probably for the best anyway. However, I could find support for the LHS motto, so I have added it back to the page. If you have a problem with that source, feel free to undo my work again. Thanks, it was nice working with you on this! ;)