User talk:General Ization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Dwpaul)
Jump to: navigation, search


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.


Teleperformance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm from Teleperformance global marketing, and just us can apply posts. if you would like to post something, please contact us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karolkarol74 (talkcontribs) 12:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As an employee of Teleperformance, you should not be editing this article at all. See Conflict of interest. General Ization Talk 17:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I AM the translator![edit]

Good Day,

First let's maintain a professional and peaceful decorum here shall we? Your "attack" is not received, but if you are ASKING how I know that Priscilla Bechtinger IS and has always been THE ONLY translator for Paulo Coelho's book, "The Alchemist" it's because I have FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE! There are several names mentioned on the internet but only Priscilla Bechtinger worked with Paulo, directly and with a company based in Miami at the time, on the FIRST English translation of the book, from cover to cover. Though there was a contract with a promised amount of money agreed to for the translation, including a stipulation of being named in the book, neither happened! Priscilla Bechtinger translated the book. PERIOD. Paulo Coelho knows it and if you have an issue with it, ask him who he worked with at the time! Ask him about the "Igresia Universal" and the other TWO books that Priscilla also translated for them without pay! I don't know who you are but just because you've found more unfounded info "out there on the web" does not mean that it's credible nor that you have ANY authority whatsoever to be monitoring this information. It is not "vandalism" as you so rudely stated! If YOU persist on removing the CORRECT name, then I believe you are the one that could be in hot water with someone perhaps, because THE TRUTH my friend, is simply FACT. "Ms Costa" did not translate the introduction as was on Wikipedia, neither did the two men you mentioned in your note! THEY are not Brazilian and this translation required the bicultural, bilingual abilities of the translator which Priscilla is both. Just ask Paulo! Oh, maybe you don't know him, have never met? I'll challenge you as far as you want to go, but take the hostility and anger out of it ok? The truth will always prevail. Kind Regards. Iamthetruetranslator (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iamthetruetranslator: My message to you was not an "attack", it was a clear warning after you repeatedly and persistently violated Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not built on "first hand knowledge", which is called original research here; it is based on citations of reliable, independent sources. Your repeated insertion of what you claim to be "first hand knowledge" is a violation of Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability if it cannot be reliably sourced. As stated, please do not continue to make this change without citing a reliable source; if you do, you are likely to be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 20:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iamthetruetranslator: By the way, since I sense that you have not actually clicked on any of the links to Wikipedia policies I have linked above and in the message on your Talk page and read them, I will reproduce a portion of one of them here, concerning verifiability: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. ... All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." General Ization Talk 21:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Shia LeBoeuf[edit]

Shia_LaBeouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Sundayclose: The fact that the original requester did not cite one or more reliable sources does not mean that the request is a BLP violation. If you can find reliable sources, as I did, that support the information, then it is not defamatory, even if negative. Once I added the reliable source, your removal of both the original request and my response to it could not be justified by BLP policy. Whether or not it belongs in the article is a separate issue, as I stated in my response, and I am not so sure it does. But you should not be hasty to declare unsourced edit requests on Talk pages to be BLP violations. A little effort is required on your part before you revert others' edits. General Ization Talk 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that I did not say a reliable source was properly cited; I said it was readily citable (which is to say a source can be – and was – found by anyone with a minimum of effort).

As for "staying off [your] Talk page", I'm not sure what your (apparent) problem with me is, but your Talk page is intended for communicating with you about your edits, as I was doing. I can't guarantee I won't use it again if need be. General Ization Talk 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MH 17[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETheman (talkcontribs) 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@ETheman: Yes. However, with this edit you changed the title of a Wall Street Journal article published last August to something that doesn't appear at the WSJ link based on something you saw in an article at a different source and published today. We don't "amend" the titles of articles at our sources to fit later developments. Please always sign your edits on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. General Ization Talk 17:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Overly specific[edit]

What the hell does "overly specific category" mean in your book? Thebuck093 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thebuck093: I should think my summary is pretty much self-explanatory. A category that is unlikely to have more than one or two members is overly specific, and does not serve any particularly useful purpose. See WP:SMALLCAT. I have instead added Category:American prison television series, a far more useful categorization. General Ization Talk 04:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Marlboro high School[edit]

Hello there I do not use Wikipedia much but I was looking up info on the school I go to and I came across the Wikipedia page on my school. I thought I should update it so I did ( I changed the principle from Roseanne Judan-Collins to mr Rick Denton but later on I saw that you changed it . Oh and the thing about mersa was an accident I mention to send it to a friend that was asking me Questions but I must have hit paste while I was editing the page !:) I was wondering if you can explain to me if I did something wrong. I hope I'm not posting this in the wrong place if I am I am terribly sorry! But if I see you change the webpage again I will respect that and leave it alone:) you have a lot more experience with this I see . No hard feelings just trying to help. --2604:2000:24C7:9500:FD30:8266:1AB5:8446 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)A Student that goes to Marlboro high school

Lokraj Party History[edit]

Sir, I am a student of The Panjab University Chandigarh. I was searching about Lokraj Party as my grandfather Shri Muni Lal Verma was a member of it. In your page it is given that Shri Thakur Singh Negi led the party. However in the book, World Affairs and Thakur Singh Negi, it is given that he was a part of the Janta Party. Could you please clarify this and also tell me who the founder of the Lokraj Party was? Thanking you Ajaitaj Singh Thakur (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The article Lok Raj Party Himachal Pradesh is not "my" article, and I did not write it. My involvement with it was to revert (undo) a vandalism of it in June 2014. The article is also lacking citations of any reliable sources, so I would not be overly concerned that what it says conflicts with the book you cite. There is a good chance that your book is correct and the article is incorrect. General Ization Talk 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Although I assume you made a typo in the edit summary, I thank you for your reversion of my edit to Soap. I will research it more and come back later hopefully with more information. I actually agree with you while at the same time saying my edit was good; we just need more information to resolve the conflict. Good day, Soap 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Soap: Yes, the year in my summary was a typo. Your edit may be good, but if based solely on what appears in the article, it could just as easily be a flawed assumption. General Ization Talk 19:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with a living biography[edit]

Good day, I am an end user seeking help to revise a living biography - I am just an end user and a year+ ago I attempted to remove some sections of this page and you revered them (which i fully understand why now). However, after some educating and enough time, I would like to garner support to revise this webpage. I have added my thoughts to the Talk page of the Living Biography but fear it is not paid attention to closely. The revision would be based on the following Wikipedia standard to begin - I am sure there other standards this page is not meeting either. I dont know how to proceed but want to garner support to completely remove three sections of the living biography without upsetting people. Can you please see my Talk comments and share your thoughts on a way to proceed? thank you for your help. Usa usa 123 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) USA USA 123

@Usa usa 123: I have added a {{npov}} template at the top of the article to call other editors' attention to your proposal. Personally, I have no opinion on the question, except that I don't think your comments on the Talk page adequately describe exactly what content you propose to remove and why you feel the content violates WP:UNDUE. I encourage you to go into more detail there. General Ization Talk 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I updated my thoughts on the talk page of the living biography as you suggested and it has been a few weeks without any discussion. Is there any reason to believe that I cannot remove some of the sections now or do you have suggestions on what other avenues I should take to garner support or better yet, prevent an edit war? Thank you, Usa usa 123 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Usa usa 123Usa usa 123 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Usa usa 123: I'm not going to take any position on whether your arguments on the Talk page actually justify removing the content from James F. Amos. However, I encourage you to read WP:BRD. Sometimes it is necessary to make a change, even understanding that it may get reverted, to prompt other editors to discuss a perceived need for the change on the Talk page. Your having laid out your arguments there in advance will help. General Ization Talk 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cotton Gin patent number change[edit]

I understand your reasoning on reverting my change and I realize I should have changed the site when I did to conform with my change. The picture does indeed say 72X but the government patent site

has X72. Is this good reason for change? (I'm sorry for any confusion, I'm a new editor)

Noname5589 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) 10/26/15

@Noname5589: Seems pretty clear that the patent when first awarded was numbered "72X". I suspect the PTO renumbered it to "X72" at some point to conform with a later numbering scheme. I'd propose that the existing content be retained but that content be added to state that it now appears as "X72" in the PTO's online database, without speculating as to why (unless you can find a citation that explains it). General Ization Talk 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dear Pricey[edit]

Hi, I was looking at Dear Pricey's edit history, and I saw that you had tagged it for speedy deletion, then reverted yourself. I also saw that this happened within just a few minutes of the article's creation, and that might be the only reason you removed the tag. However, another editor has since tagged the article for speedy deletion again. If you don't believe the article should be deleted, you might want to have another look at the article. (Personally I think the article probably does fail the significance test, but I like to give articles every chance I can.) Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia, and happy editing! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: I saw and read your helpful message to the article's creator. As I recall, I thought after a very rudimentary search there might be enough there to establish notability, so I withdrew my speedy del thinking it was too hasty. But I agree that after several weeks having passed, it needs more now to justify its retention. General Ization Talk 02:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're not even giving me a chance to link the sources to Dear Pricey page. This page was doing very fine for a month now. At least help me understand what better news coverage/links I should cite, just don't remove my article. If you can please guide me on how to make it better so it can stay. Thank You AlexWit (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)AlexWit 10/27/2015

@AlexWit: GrammarFascist gave you very good advice here (which you deleted, seemingly without acknowledgement). You are welcome to improve the article while the AfD discussion is ongoing, and those improvements may be the key to whether or not the article is retained. The point was that after a month, the article needed better and more independent, reliable sources in order to establish notability (and had not been edited extensively to provide them since it was created on September 26). General Ization Talk 12:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You are right, advice was given to me on creating a better article for Dear Pricey. You guys are doing a great job here on Wikipedia. I've been following this artist career and really wanted the best for him. I knew Wikipedia would have been the best look for his career the more people found about about him. Honestly I apologize about this whole thing. I've personally read "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" and have a full understanding of why my article was hit with the speedy deletion. You're doing the best you can to keep these guidelines in tact. I've looked for the best sources I can and updated them but unfortunately Dear Pricey does not meet these standards yet. I'll just wait until I can gather better sources and try again in the future. You can go ahead and delete the article. Appreciate the others for trying to help. Have a great day! - AlexWit 10/27/2015 AlexWit (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlexWit: Appreciate your understanding. Since there is now an AfD discussion concerning the article, could you submit your comments there? General Ization Talk 14:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


According to WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So, the fact that something appears in both the article's body and in the Lead is fine, as long as the items in the Lead are "the most important points". With respect to Ziegler, are you saying that her appearance on the Time magazine list is not of particular importance? It seems to me that it is, because Time is the leading US news magazine. Come to think of it, I'll copy this to the article's Talk page in case you want to discuss it further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Her appearance on the list is a consequence of the things she is notable for, not something she is notable for. So, yes, I would maintain this does not belong in the lead, and certainly not as identical content (wikilinks, citations and all) to the content that appears in the body. General Ization Talk 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The seagull[edit]

The Seagull by Anton Chekhov in a new version by Torben Betts Regents park Open Air theatre, London first performance 19 June 2015

Cast Nina. Sabrina Bartlett Natasha. Tara D'Arquian Irina. Janie Dee Masha. Lisa Diveney Yakov. Tom Greaves Simon. Colin Hoult Ilia. Fraser James Paulina. Lisa Palfrey Peter. Ian Redford Boris. Alex Robertson Konstantin Matthew Tennyson Eugene. Danny Webb

Director. Matthew Dunster Designer. Jon Bausor Movement Charlotte Broom Lighting Designer. Philip Gladwell Sound Designer. Christopher Shutt Casting Directors. Julia Horan and Lotte Hines Voice and text Coach. Janis Price Associate Designer. Rebecca browser Costume Designer. Laura hunt Props Supervisor. Taylor & Foley Props

Production Manager. Andy Beardmore Company Stage Manager. Emma Banwell- knight Deputy Stage Manager. Jenny Grand Assistant Stage Manager. Megan Kearny

Literal translation. Helen Rappaport

Would you mind putting the cast and production crew of Regents park open Air Theatre's 2015 production of The Seagull into Wikipedia properly and in detail. On November 6 th 2015, award-winning actress Janie Dee who played Irina Akadina in the critically acclaimed production at Regents park, has been invited to take a Masterclass of Torben Bett's translation of the Seagull at The Theatre Royal, Haymarket.

was reviewed very favourably by many of the national papers and is likely to have an international tour too. Some of the cast have been nominated for future awards for,their performances — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page[edit]

Leave the user's talk page alone please. They can remove block messages if they wish. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I've heard mixed opinions on this. Have given up on reverting their edits to their Talk page, as clearly not a constructive use of my time, but my understanding was that while blocked they were in fact not permitted to remove warnings that immediately preceded the block. Could you clarify? General Ization Talk 19:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING is the guideline. They cannot remove declined unblock requests while blocked but can remove block messages. I know this seems inconsistent but I'm guessing "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents" plays a part here. --NeilN talk to me 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mother Gota[edit]

I am concerned that this user appears to have made a series of trivial edits in order to achieve WP:AUTOCONFIRMED status. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Yes, I've been keeping my eye on them for that very reason. (Hence my over-hasty revert a few minutes ago.) General Ization Talk 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Your revert of my warnign on User talk:Mother Gota was unwarranted, particylarly since reverting without leaving an edit summary is only valid if the edit was vandalism. Teh cited ref specificly refrs to 125 wars, not the 168 that other Gota claimed in his or her edit. My undo of the edit (and note that it was an undo with an explanation, not a revert for vandalism) was warranted, and my warning was also warranted. Be careful with your revert button please. Meters (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Meters: It was as easy to correct the content you reverted (as I have done) as it was to revert it, especially since your reversion left the source without the content it supported. You are right that I should have included a summary, and for that I apologize. General Ization Talk 21:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I had intended to restore a corrected version shortly, but I was having trouble initially finding the "most successful" part in the source. Meters (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana[edit]

Where is the source FOR the name change ? That is why I deleted. She made news saying he took her name so she may not aave taken his name! (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See [1]. "We hyphened, I'm Saldana-Perego and he's Perego-Saldana," continued the mother of two of her and her hubby's last names." General Ization Talk 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dominican Republic[edit]

Dominican Republic ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Iñaki Salazar: Please stop adding a {{uw-disruptive3}} template to my Talk page. First of all, one revert, even if ill-advised, is NOT disruptive editing, much less the basis for a level 3 warning. See WP:DISRUPT for what is. Second, I am permitted to remove any warning, including yours, from my Talk page (as is any unblocked user). The assumption is that the removal of the warning shows that it was read by the user, so there is no need to retain it on the page. Your restoration of the warning is actually itself disruptive. Third, whether or not "0.1% Yellow" was the terminology used in the DR census of 1960, it was non-encyclopedic and potentially insulting to an entire ethnic population without a link to explain its meaning (that link is now in place, hence we have no further argument). To illustrate, there are many documents from the US Civil War era that use the "n-word'" to refer to the African slave (and freemen) population, but that does not mean we can or should use the word here, even in articles about that era, to refer to that population. General Ization Talk 20:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And I note that another editor has changed "0.1% Yellow" to "0.1% Asian (eastern descent)", presumably to avoid the same potential for misunderstanding and offense. 20:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

John Lasseter article[edit]

John Lasseter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


I am new to Wikipedia. I think the article on John Lasseter is far too long, given that he is relatively non-notable. Would it not be reasonable to move back to a shorter version, like my edit attempted?

--2001:4898:80E8:F:0:0:0:168 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Lasseter is quite notable. GABHello! 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
First, as GAB indicates, the subject is highly notable; this should be obvious by looking at the article and at the many references that support its content. Second, no, it is never reasonable to remove 95% of the properly cited content of any article without discussing such a drastic change on the article's Talk page first to obtain the consensus of other editors (and generally only if you can demonstrate that the content is fully presented in some other article or articles). Because you think it is far too long is not an adequate reason to remove any content from Wikipedia. General Ization Talk 00:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
By the way, your other edits, including what appear to be vandalism of another editor's private pages, are worrisome. If not for them, I was about to suggest that you slow down as an apparent new editor and learn about Wikipedia policies and practices before executing such bold edits, but your edits so far make me think a sockpuppet investigation may be warranted. Care to offer an explanation for them? General Ization Talk 00:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, concerning this edit, usually on Wikipedia it is better to let speak for themselves rather than introduce opinion, per WP:ASSERT. It would be different if many ocean scientists claim that 5% is a small proportion, but the current reference does not say so. Readers can decide for themselves whether they think 5% is high or low. Five percent may be a small proportion in many circumstances, but using 'only' here may suggest to some readers that explorers and scientists did a poor job. An example to make the point that 5% can not automatically be considered a small proportion: if 5% of the population of a country would have Ebola, you wouldn't say 'only 5%'. Feel free to revert again, but only if you have a solid reason or references. Gap9551 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gap9551: I still disagree that the use of "only 5%" to refer to the percent of the world's oceans that has been explored suggests any lack of neutrality, but not enough to spend more time arguing the case. I would point out, however, that the source says "more than 95 percent of the underwater world remains unexplored", so our article should in fact say "less than 5%" (unless you think the use of "less than" is somehow non-neutral also). General Ization Talk 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You could bring up the issue on the talk page of the article. I wouldn't mind using 'only' if most editors think it is appropriate here, of course, but its use just seemed strange and unnecessary to me. I don't think 'less than' is non-neutral. However, strictly speaking it is vague since it can mean anything between 0% and 5%. Then again, the phrase is colloquially used when the exact number is close to 5%, like 4.8%. Gap9551 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we are being a little pedantic here. In any case, our source says "more than 95%" (without explaining whether it is closer to 95% or to 100%), so we can only say "less than 5%". We can only be as specific as our sources. General Ization Talk 00:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)