Jump to content

User talk:General Ization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PLEASE READ

Stop icon
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:

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.

A kitten for you!

hi

DUBA21 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Enigma machine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The two warning were unnecessary, and showed a lack of sensitivity to a veteran editor. scope_creep (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: It has nothing to do with assuming good faith. When it has already been pointed out to you that there is not a consensus for the removal of content from Enigma machine, and I have already suggested that you start a conversation to seek that consensus, your removal of the content a second time without discussion is not constructive editing and does not demonstrate good faith. You have been here long enough to understand this. General Ization Talk 21:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. scope_creep (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Brosnan got an honorary OBE

As he is Irish not british i was pointing that out. How is that vandalism ?. Cop on will you 92.251.135.193 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian people by net worth

I had to remove the PROD as there had already been a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian people by net worth. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: Yes, the last PROD was in 2013 (5 years ago) and clearly from reading it there was more content there then (though much apparently questionable) than there is now. The basis now is that the article is entirely useless, not the argument for deletion then. So what is the correct process to nominate for deletion? General Ization Talk 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid as it sounds a second AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually that makes perfect sense; I just wasn't thinking of it. General Ization Talk 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aks 2001 Film

1. did Raghavan's corpse get burnt into ashes before Spirit entered Amitabh?

2. Is this [Supernatural Thriler Film] realy [Fictional] without [Happy Ending]?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

I have no idea. My sole involvement with Aks (2001 film) has been to revert vandalism. You should be posting these suggestions on the article's Talk page, not on the individual Talk page of every editor who has recently edited the article. General Ization Talk 19:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i am the copyright manager of Lulu Group International , Therefore i request you to revert the copyright deletion done by your side Mohammedjaseem66 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammedjaseem66: See your Talk page for information concerning the correct mechanism to prove your copyright on the material. In the meantime, it remains a copyright violation. General Ization Talk 16:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammedjaseem66: P.S. - It will be much harder to accomplish this if you are blocked from editing, which you almost certainly will be if you continue. General Ization Talk 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source

To the Travis Scott article, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmythick (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Snyder as best pound-for-pound

Gen. Ization:

Sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to clarify that I changed Kyle Snyder's page to attribute him being considered the best pound-for-pound wrestler in the world to this page, which is on Flowrestling, a site that functions as a journalistic clearinghouse for wrestling news and coverage and isn't known to be biased, as least as far as I've been able to tell:

https://www.flowrestling.org/rankings/6031553-international-rankings-mens-freestyle/16541-kyle-snyder-settles-p4p-discussion

It's their most current ranking since it dates to the last World Championship. But no worries if it needs to stay off the page, just wanted to make sure you knew what the change was meant to be about.

Also I can't tell if it was you or someone else, the username looks defunct now, but this is why I've followed Mr. Snyder's career:

Sorry if this isn't the proper way to respond, but as you can see I don't have much time to edit on here. I have no familial relationship to Kyle Snyder, my handle is just a goofy personal nickname. He wrestled in my area in high school and I followed his career, and thought it'd be nice to work on his Wikipedia page since I was so impressed by how he handled himself in the limelight and how amiable he seemed to other wrestlers. And I'm not an IT professional but at one point had enough time to learn Wikipedia's codes. I'm sure Wikipedia's editors can edit his page for accuracy and otherwise, sorry for any trouble. Unkledaddy2017 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unkledaddy2017: Re: "... as well as the title of best pound-for-pound wrestler on the planet": Who awards the "title" of "best pound-for-pound wrestler"? Is that a competitive title, or just the opinion of a writer for Flowrestling? If the latter, the only way it should appear in the article is with dated, inline attribution ("In May 2017, Christian Pyles with Flowrestling called Snyder the best pound-for-pound wrestler in international competition"). If the former, you should make clear who awards that title and when it was awarded. General Ization Talk 03:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Okay sorry about the lack of attribution, I attributed it to Flowrestling since it seems like it's an overall editorial decision in the same spirit that newspapers and Gatorade or whoever do their rankings and awards for athletes and not the decision from the one writer who happens to write up the article. Unkledaddy2017 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Unkledaddy2017: Newspapers and Gatorade or whatever have advertising copywriters. We are editing an encyclopedia. That means we don't say that anything is the best or the worst, on the planet or anywhere else, without clearly explaining at what time, why and among what set. General Ization Talk 12:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi

thanks for policing wikipedia, i appreciate your efforts. Have a nice weekend :) Flylikeaseagull (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice revertin', Tex!

For this, you got to the revert before I did; I created WP:FGSUES just so I could cite it there. Dammit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi General Ization!

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.91.28.107&redirect=no

Please make the effort to read my edit explanations and the page history. You accused me of unconstructive edits. I'm sure you act in the best intent, but you apparently didn't properly read the previous comments, nor did yo explain your opinion. Yes, your's is just an option. So please stop acting as if you were Justitia - though I have to admit you seem to be blind to the improvement I did. You are behaving like a bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.91.28.107 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read everything you have written. We will need to agree to disagree, which means you do not have consensus for this change (and in fact, with Oshwah, the consensus is against you). Please stop now. General Ization Talk 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 12 year Anniversary

Happy 12 Year Anniversary for being on wikipedia! That is a long time! -Anna 2/17/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.138.24.174 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anna! General Ization Talk 22:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what

you deleted my change to kingdom hearts when the change was totally acceptable, i could potentially get banned soon for making changes like this!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeybladeKingdom (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KeybladeKingdom: Your change was unsourced. Combined with your prior POV edits, yes, you very likely will be blocked from editing. You might want to consider stopping now. 19:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree with KeybladeKingdom, they didn't really do anything wrong, and their youtube is pretty cool too, maybey you should let some minor things like this slip so things aren't all so serious here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdrinkBLEACH (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:109.153.91.71

I have to let you know that users are allowed to delete warnings on their own user pages, so I will have to ask you to not delete the warnings on User talk:109.153.91.71. CLCStudent (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removals by Special:Contributions/2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4

This IP is going through almost every article and removing the same category. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks: As well they might; as they have explained on your Talk page, the category should not remain on the page of everyone who at one time was a federal prisoner indefinitely. Discuss with them, please. General Ization Talk 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you General. I have changed dozens this evening and this editor has reverted all edits and accused me of vandalism. It would be very nice if they would engage in constructive discourse with me and understand my position rather than removing my edits, talk page discussion and accusations of my constructive conduct.2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a general one, it's not "Current prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government" it's "Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government", it's highly inappropriate to base it off of that kind of understanding. There was no consensus for these removals and you went on a removal spree, which i believed at the time constituted vandalism. I also can't understand half the things you have put on my talk page. The wording and /or syntax is wrong and it's all mushed together. R9tgokunks ✡ 04:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it's not "Current and past prisoners and detainees", we must indeed assume that it applies to those who currently meet one or the other criterion. If you think that something else was intended, bring it up at WP:CATN. At this point, the IP's edits and mine are based on WP:COMMONSENSE. General Ization Talk 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that removing valid content constitutes as using WP:COMMONSENSE. If the category is to be removed like you aim it to be, then it should be replaced with similar categories of "Current prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government" and "Past prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government." That just creates more work and takes up more storage space. R9tgokunks ✡ 04:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that link constitutes a noticeboard that is no longer in use. R9tgokunks ✡ 04:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to say this one more time: if you need clarification concerning the category, take it to WP:CATN. That's what that noticeboard is for. As it stands now, the IP's edits are based on a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the category's intent, with which I agree, and that suggests that you do not have consensus to reinstate the removed content. General Ization Talk 04:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I see now that WP:CATN is no longer in use. I'm sure there's somewhere else to take this matter. General Ization Talk 04:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all of the articles affected are biographies, and many are biographies of living persons (who indeed may be most directly affected by miscategorization), I suggest WP:BLPN. General Ization Talk 05:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to start the discussion now, because I'm going to bed. If it's important enough to you, go right ahead. In the meantime, leave the IP (who I ask to refrain from further edits of this type until the question is raised properly) alone. General Ization Talk 05:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am the ip in question. I will refrain from any and all further similar edits for now. Thank you General. I appreciate your assistance and input.2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic to be asked to be the one to make amends or leave the IP alone, when the IP clearly was being WP:UNCIVIL and personally attacked my age/intelligence:

Oh are you older than 12? I would have guessed about seven, seeing that you do not know what the category means or even know who Al Capone or Charles Manson were?

and then refused to apologize, instead saying I should be the one to apologize:

Well, it would seem that you have come to your senses and are now working with collaboration in mind. I can merely see it from my side with your calling me a vandal, disruptive and an editor that would surely be blocked. You came off as stuffy and disrespectful to someone that was being constructive and trying to help with the work of Wikipedia. You assume because I am an IP, I have not been here before. In fact, I have been an editor on and off for at least ten years (though did not try to "pull rank" on you). Perhaps, if you apologize and admit that you were incorrect in your above assertions. I would reciprocate with an apology of my own. You sir, are the person who should be kinder and calmer now that all your reverts have been reversed by the General. (Thank you to the General). In closing, I surely hope that you have learned a thing or two about Categories and who belongs in them and when. Have a good night and I accept your apology!

R9tgokunks ✡ 06:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is also subject to a dispute with another user, one Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), at [1] for disruptive editing. R9tgokunks ✡ 06:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly concerned about what you find ironic. And if you are tweaked about that (rather minor) level of incivility, you're in the wrong place. General Ization Talk 12:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I got pinged here, so I'll add my .02¢ to the discussion, though I'm only peripherally involved. I don't have the appetite to get into the "detainees" category dispute too deeply right now, but here are some quick observations for all parties to consider:

  • (1) I agree that on its face, it seems to be "common sense" that once a detainee dies or is released, they no longer fit the "detainees" category - unless the guidance at the category page explicitly includes "Past or present prisoners and detainees", which is not currently stated at the Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States federal government page, so those deletions can be excused as good faith edits.
  • (2) However, many of the deletions were also of Category:American prisoners and detainees, which clearly states it does indeed include "past" detainees, so perhaps those out-of-process deletions were an oversight?
  • (3) I also note that while the first category doesn't explicitly include "past" detainees, it does contain a sub-category Category:Prisoners who died in United States federal government detention, which indicates to me that at least some of the "past" detainees (those who died) were still intended to be included in a subset of the category under discussion.

So while the initial deletions may have been made in good faith, the stronger argument supports changing edits like this one from a deletion into a category change. Change it to the "Prisoners who died..." subcategory instead. And on edits such as this one, the deletion of the "American prisoners and detainees" categories should be reversed as long as the guidance on that category continues to instruct us to include "past" detainees. If you want more information on why this category includes both "past" and current detainees, this discussion touches on several of the pro & con arguments made a decade ago on this very category (see also this edit).

While I've just given plenty of arguments in support of reinstating (or modifying) many of the deleted categories, there is a caveat. You'll note above that General Ization gave the excellent suggestion to raise your issue at WP:BLPN, and I can't stress enough that BLP concerns may supersede the guidance provided on category pages, and trumping my arguments. So let me echo GI's advice that you first raise your concern at BLPN to determine if there is any issue with leaving "detainee" categories on the biographies of living people. (FYI: Be sure you are well-versed in WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEFINING before presenting your concerns.) Then if you are really ambitious, you can attempt to get all of the aforementioned categories standardized across Wikipedia by starting a community-wide RfC on the matter at the Village Pump, but be sure to leave notifications at WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Detention Facilities, etc. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to make a point about vandalism and how Wikipedia is a good source of information even though it can be edited by random people like me. I know that what I did broke a rule and it wont happen again. Most of my edits are good (besides the last one ☺). Stega BOB (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cad315 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC) sorry about that edit, I did that cuz I saw a picture online that said dank meme starter pack, and dat boi was on there, thank you.[reply]

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

How exactly does this qualify as 'unconstructive'? Thanks. --2A00:23C4:3E02:B000:7052:962A:3AC:82BC (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany is an era in history, not a place at which a person was born. Warner Herzog was born in Germany. General Ization Talk 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but my edit was in good faith and you accused me of vandalism. My edit did not constitute vandalism.--2A00:23C4:3E02:B000:7052:962A:3AC:82BC (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The warning said your edits appeared to constitute vandalism. If they were not vandalism, well and good; don't repeat them, and you'll be fine. General Ization Talk 20:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good faith edit. Perhaps you should of left a note in your edit summery instead of just using RB and tagging. From where I am standing, I left a note explaining my edit - if you disagreed with that reasoning, then you should of explained why, it's just better that way and RB should only be used for cases of *blatant* vandalism and disruption. If you think my edit could of constituted vandalism, then you haven't given a reason as to why you reached this conclusion. Just a few pointers, I'm not new around here.--2A00:23C4:3E02:B000:7052:962A:3AC:82BC (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Ization&oldid=827623668"