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.

Universidad Empresarial edition[edit]

My dear friend I am not engaged on an edit warring I spent countless hours researching, and spent 2 hours writting an article, and someone, erase it at once. that is not been a fair use, as editor. It is supposed we must contribute. Were my writting inapropiate? was not actual information, with reliable sources? Taesulkim (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: Perhaps you should read our policies and other guidance before you spend another two hours. I am not responsible for your wasting your time preparing content that was indeed inappropriate and not encyclopedic. And you need to read the definition of edit warring, which was indeed what you were doing. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 17:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think God was in heaven!! Do not worry, block me at once. I wont spent my time, with people of such short capability. By the way, I am native Japanesse speaker. Be my guest and block me from now on. Thank for wasting my time!!Taesulkim (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: If you are interested in requesting a self-block, as opposed to respecting Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, please see WP:BLOCKME. Alternatively, you could actually think about what you are doing and spend some time reading those policies. General Ization Talk 17:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please take a look to I quote: AC.CR Domains Academic: colleges, universities, research entities that have academic and/or research objectives. In the case of government-sponsored state institutions they shall have to be certified by CONARE, and private academic institutions shall have to be certified by CONESUP. (National Council on Private Higher Education).

Can you please take a look to I quote: AC.CR Domains Academic: colleges, universities, research entities that have academic and/or research objectives. In the case of government-sponsored state institutions they shall have to be certified by CONARE, and private academic institutions shall have to be certified by CONESUP. (National Council on Private Higher Education).

So, the website is Taesulkim (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read the link, below

under 1.5 Documentation needed to register a domain name

The required documents for Domain Name registration are:

A legal entity certification for the institution, issued no more than one month before. A letter from the domain’s legal representative requesting the domain. A copy of the legal representative’s national ID card. Post-graduate centers and research institutions should present a copy of their legal charter document. Private universities should present a copy of the legal recognition document issued by the CONESUP. State-run universities should present a copy of the legal recognition document issued by the CONARE

What else do you need?? Please clarify, since unless the institutios has CONESUP approval, it can not get and domain

So, the website is (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: Please continue the discussion at Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica#University website. Do not continue to revert to your preferred version until consensus is established. General Ization Talk 18:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralIzation You requested reliable sources, and now UNESCO WHED listing seems not to please you... In my opinio, there is something behind of this, that you do not want to be edited, although all data has been presented. Taesulkim (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: You can believe whatever you want. Decisions about content are made here by consensus and taking into consideration reliable sources that support the content, not based on your opinions. If you are able to convince your fellow editors to support the change by continuing the discussion on the article's Talk page, then it should be made. Otherwise, and until that consensus is established, it will not. Please also read Assume good faith, a basic principle of Wikipedia which you have just violated. General Ization Talk 18:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Walt Disney[edit]


My edits to the Walt Disney page were common knowledge. I added to the page something along the lines of this in the beginning synopsis of the article. "Some of the things he is known for is Mickey Mouse along with the first full-length animated feature Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". How is this not allowed? It is common knowledge that Walt created Mickey Mouse and he, along with his studio, created the animated feature Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This was simply giving people who are trying to learn about him a few examples of his greatest work and in my opinion furthers the article. So please tell me what was wrong with that. 19disneyland55 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC) 19Disneyland55, November 5, 2016.

@19disneyland55: What you actually added was "Today he is known as possibly the greatest entertainer of all time. This can be seen through how the movies and characters he created, most notably Mickey Mouse, are recognized and cherished by people all over the world." Known by whom? This is not a statement of fact, but an opinion. It doesn't matter whether others may share your opinion. This or any other statement that something is "the greatest" or "is recognized and cherished by people all over the world", without a cited source, is unverifiable and is what is called original research on Wikipedia, and is not permitted. See also Puffery. You then followed with "Today, the company he founded, now known as the Walt Disney Company, continues what he started as has grown to be the largest media conglomerate in the world." Once again, this is a statement that requires citation, as it is an assertion regarding the superiority and/or relative size of a company which is not "common knowledge" (in fact, it is demonstrably false – Comcast is #1 in terms of revenue; see also Media conglomerates) and should not be assumed to be correct without documentation that supports it. Walt Disney's notability for the creation of Mickey Mouse and SW&SD is already very well documented in the article, and does not require that you point it out in the lead. Perhaps most importantly, when your edits are challenged by another editor, you should attempt to discuss them either on their Talk page, your Talk page or the article's Talk page, not persistently make the same or similar changes, even if you think your changes are fine. Doing so is called edit warring and can result in your being blocked from editing. Please let me know if you have other questions. General Ization Talk 21:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
In addition, this statement already appears at the end of the lead: "Nevertheless, Disney is considered an international cultural icon, particularly in the United States, where the company he co-founded exists today as one of the world's largest and best-known entertainment companies" (with a link to an article that contains citations for the latter claim). Your addition to the lead was completely redundant with the the existing contents of the lead, and hence unnecessary. General Ization Talk 21:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
For starters, it was a typo. I meant to put "one of the largest media conglomerates in the world". I know Comcast is the largest. Second off, the lead should probably mention that he created Mickey Mouse and the first full length animated feature, considering these were his most important achievements and pretty essential information. Far more important than the number of academy awards he has, which seems to be what you have up for the lead. Thirdly, all of what I put down is common knowledge, with taking in account the typo I made. Common knowledge does not need to be cited in books, academic and research papers, etc. Everyone knows Walt Disney was responsible for Snow White and the seven dwarfs and Mickey Mouse. Therefore, it's common knowledge. Everyone knows that Disney is one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, therefore its common knowledge, and it is pretty well known that Walt Disney is one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Look at the company that's been built around his work. So therefore, once again, common knowledge and really not even opinion. Also, how did you get jurisdiction over this page and why does Wikipedia give you all this power? What do you know about Walt Disney that allows you to make decisions regarding the page? Plus, if you look at the other stuff on your talk page, you are so rude and harsh and nasty to others. Maybe you should try being nice for a change. 19disneyland55 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@19disneyland55: You asked me to explain why your edits were reverted, and I have done so. If the edits are repeated, and if they continue to violate Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability and original research, they will be reverted again. It isn't what I know about Walt Disney that qualifies me to make these decisions; it's what I know, as a 10+ year editor and a rollbacker, about Wikipedia's policies, which are published and available here and at multiple links within my response above for you to review. It will probably save us both a great deal of time if you will do so. General Ization Talk 01:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@19disneyland55: Between the stunt with the self-awarded barnstars and the sockpuppetry, I assume this is the end of our discusssion. Good luck. General Ization Talk 18:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My apologies, I didn't realise you'd picked up a typo in your recent edit -- tks for your stewardship of this article! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


"Please use the encyclopedic voice when editing Wikipedia. The encyclopedia does not exclaim "At long last" about the Cubs' championship. We report facts here, not opinions."

How is that an opinion? They had not won in 108 years. It most certainly is "At long last." By those standards, "The Idiots" ought to be removed from the history section of the Boston Red Sox article that talks about the 2004 team. NBA2030 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@NBA2030: As you're no doubt well aware, the use of "The Idiots" to refer to the Boston Red Sox has nothing to do with Wikipedia (and is well explained in the article). "At long last" is an exclamation that something is overdue. That is an opinion; one that many Cubs fans may agree with, but nevertheless an opinion. My advice to you stands. General Ization Talk 21:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. I won't change the title anymore. NBA2030 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

@General_Ization Just to let you know I applied for a Dispute Resolution Taesulkim (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@General_Ization Can you please leave some feedback on the Talk page, if you agree to display either (As listed on UNESCO WHED) or since none is either agree or disagree in the talk page. Also notice the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PolandMEC as been concluded. Sorry for any wrong approach. I do not intend to be unpolite. Taesulkim (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the SPI has not been concluded. The CU's research is only one step in a sockpuppet investigation. In this case, because of the age of and lack of any recent usage by the other accounts, the CU's results are inconclusive. An admin will evaluate the edits, usage history and other evidence and will determine what if any action will be taken. General Ization Talk 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

Elected President is used in all the other United States presidential election, Year articles. Why make 2016 different? GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: See President-elect of the United States. I can't account for those other articles, but the correct title for someone elected to be POTUS who has not yet taken office is President-elect. They cease being President-elect and become President when they are inaugurated. "Elected President" is what every President becomes, at any time after their election, both before and after they take office. It does not express the temporary nature of the office and their very limited powers prior to inauguration. General Ization Talk 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Also see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which uses the term (which has since come to be written with a hyphen), and 18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service for an example of how the President-elect is referred to in Federal regulations. General Ization Talk 03:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The idea of the infobox is to show who got elected President. Not to place a 'title' on them. Anyways, I have a discussion about this at the article talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay:The idea of the posttitle field (which is the field at issue) of Infobox election is "Title of the victor of the election (President-elect, Prime Minister-designate...), only if different than before." per Template:Infobox election. Please note the examples given. General Ization Talk 04:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not how we've got it done at United States presidential election, 2012, United States presidential election, 2008, etc etc. We need consistency. GoodDay (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Yes, and it is possible to be consistently wrong; that doesn't make it right. You have others telling you the same thing on the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If you check the infoboxes of the elected senators, governors etc etc. You'll notice that they use Elected Senator & Elected Governor etc, instead of Senator-elect & Governor-elect. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?. It is silly for us to debate this in two places simultaneously. General Ization Talk 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

–Reversion of my edit to article on Christina Ricci[edit]

Thanks, General Ization, for notification of reversion. I was concerned that your reversion would restore what was previously displaying on my screen (both desktop and mobile), i.e. an incorrect hyphen joining the last word of one clause to the first word of the next clause, thus creating the incorrect and impossible compound word "hits-to" and ruining the sense of the whole sentence. That is what I had tried to correct.

In fact your "reversion" has left the article as I intended it in the first place, with an n-dash between spaces rather than a hyphen. I'm not sure why your method (–, created with & + ndash + ;) is better than my method ( – ), and I don't know why your method didn't work first time round (which I can assure you it didn't), before I edited the article, but at least it now works – which is obviously what we both want. (I just put in that n-dash my way. Is this bad practice?)

So I promise I wasn't vandalizing or doing anything untoward!

Thanks again, and take care.

Neil (London) (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Thank you for defending my talk page! Scjessey (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Gold star for you![edit]

You're so kind! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, General Ization. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Florence Henderson[edit]

Might you enlighten me as to why you reverted my valid and researched edit on the page Florence Henderson within a minute's time and then reverted your own edit? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Look more closely. I reverted several vandalistic edits that preceded yours and then reinstated your edit (did not revert the removal of the vandalism). You're welcome. General Ization Talk 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
General Ization Hi. I did look more closely. Mine was not vandalistic. Could you please explain "why" you reverted mine? I'm trying to figure this out for the next time. Not to question your intent here. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Maineartists: I wasn't implying that your edit was vandalistic. However, the 20 or so edits prior to yours were not constructive. It was faster to revert to the "last good" version immediately prior to those edits and then reapply your "good" change than it would have been to surgically remove those changes "around" your edit. "Fast" reversion is important on an article such as this which is being heavily edited (because of a current event) in order to avoid edit conflicts and collateral loss of/damage to subsequent edits. FWIW, I had begin the reversion before you applied your edit. I realize that you received a notification that your edit had been reverted. It's a good idea to review the page history when this happens before you become offended; generally, you'll be able to figure out the editor's reasoning by doing so. General Ization Talk 20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't offended. I'm trying to learn from your edit. All I see when I click on your revision is this: [1]. I'm still confused (and obviously ignorant) as to where the 20 edits come into play? Hence the enlightenment query. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

900 seconds[edit]

Hi, the SKY News source quotes Hamilton as saying "15 minutes", and so does The Guardian, two sources I find much more reliable than the tabloid Express. That's why I went for the "15 minutes". (Also, as an aside, the correct phrase is "15 minutes of fame" so it's a bit unlikely that an Englishman would say "quarter of an hour of fame".) Cheers, Yintan  15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan: The "quarter of an hour" quote appears in The Telegraph. I don't think you can predict the phrasing used by an Englishman who had been living in France for more than 50 years. The idiom is indeed "15 minutes of fame", but he may well have used "quarter of an hour" for dramatic effect. We cannot say what is a "correct" quote unless we follow reliable sources that report the quote, and I'd say the Telegraph trumps SKY News. General Ization Talk 15:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The Guardian says "15 minutes" too. Does my newspaper beat up your newspaper? Face-wink.svg Yintan  15:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg In this edit someone vandalised my user page, and before I could notice it, you reverted it. Thanks and best regards from Amsterdam Amin (Talk) 05:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What is it that is wrong that I am doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Please stop adding unsourced content to articles here. General Ization Talk 16:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a sorced article there and you cleared it off, but there is no reason as to why (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean this removal? That wasn't me, but the reverting editor did indeed provide the reason in the summary, and I agree with them that this is not a reliable source. Without a reliable source, the statement cannot be added. General Ization Talk 17:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So you want me to find another reliable source is that right? (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I want you to not add content that is not reliably sourced. General Ization Talk 17:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's if I try to make sure I know it's okay with it, because if I try to add a unreliable article, I might get in that bath with hot sause (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC) I don't want to make a mess if you're trying to hubris with me (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

List of drug-related deaths[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The drug Emetine poisoned her heart so it could be drug related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talkcontribs) 23:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Forrest Lesak: Your theory that Karen Carpenter's death "could be" drug related is not enough. A source that says that emetine is a drug or that it can kill does not mean or say that it killed Karen Carpenter. Theories that are unsourced are called original research here and are not permitted. Given that the medical examiner ruled that Carpenter's death was not drug-related, your claim that it is defies existing sourced content, and therefore her death will not be listed at List of drug-related deaths. None of this is news to you as we have been discussing this since at least May 2016. If you continue to add it despite this explanation, it will be treated as disruptive editing and you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 00:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the results that i put down isnt enough to cause death but still it may or may not be soft of drug related as i read in an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrest Lesak (talkcontribs) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Forrest Lesak: Once again, "may or may not" is completely useless in the context of an encyclopedic article. We do not deal in possibilities but in facts, as reported by reliable sources. Please drop the stick. General Ization Talk 05:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Your revert to my edit on Assassination[edit]

Please explain why you reverted my factual statement. Murder is not universally defined across the World. Further, murder in the US is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person by another. Therefore, when the killing of some person for political gain (as an example) is deemed legal, then it is an assassination yet not murder. Again, killing and murder are not one in the same.airuditious (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aleding: Please review the cited sources for the lead statement in the article. E.g., Black's Law: "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons." This describes murder, not homicide. It is not possible to accidentally assassinate someone, to do so through recklessness, nor to do so without premeditation. I'd be intrigued to hear your theory as to how a killing performed for political gain would be found to be "legal". If you would like to make a statement in the lead that contradicts the existing statement, you will need to cite a reliable source that supports your statement. You did not do so; hence your edit was reverted. General Ization Talk 02:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, as to your mention of how murder is defined in the US, Wikipedia does not limit itself to US topics and the article you are editing does not limit itself to assassination in the United States. General Ization Talk 02:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Your comment re: Wikipedia not being limited to the US is actually part of my argument - so no disagreement there. That aside, you are correct that I did err but not in the manner which you state. I neglected to include the word "malice" in my summary definition of again, murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a person by another WITH MALICE. Homicide is the killing of a person by another and in addition, homicide is not universally illegal in any jurisdiction in America. Finally, the Black's law definition you quote drives my point all the way home - they deliberately did not state "murder" yet they did state killing (i.e. homicide) which is EXACTLY the same as the change I made and you reverted. In essence, no definition of the word assassination should include any statement that it is de facto murder. Please undo your revert. airuditious (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Aleding: I'll not revert my reversion, as I'm not convinced. However, I'm wrapping up for the evening and I won't revert the edit a second time, though I won't be surprised if another editor does. My advice to you would be to present your interpretation of the existing sources on the article's Talk page and to seek consensus for it. Unless others agree that the existing sources support your statement, you'll need to find a source that does to say it. General Ization Talk 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem at 2016 Ohio State University attack[edit]

We have an editor who's persistently trying to categorize the article as an Islamic terrorist attack, despite the talk page discussion. I've already wasted my three reverts and am definitely not going to shoot for a fourth. I need some help here... Parsley Man (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Sorry, been offline for a while, addressing some RL matters. The editor seems to have settled down for a bit ... I'll keep an eye on it and jump in if he resumes. Aside from EW, it can and should be pointed out that he is operating against consensus as well as policy. General Ization Talk 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually, he reverted my third reversion and it's been left unchallenged. That's the problem. Parsley Man (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, actually, I saw what you did. Thank you. Also, no problem for being offline. We've all got stuff to do besides Wikipedia. Parsley Man (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I've already reverted. I was looking for the application of a category rather than the addition of a See also that implies that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism, which is a little less explicit but equally inappropriate. General Ization Talk 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I said "categorization" but was feeling a little tired and didn't know how else to explain it. My bad. Parsley Man (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, been a long day. Apologies for our dust-up earlier over how and when to report the official statement on the number of perpetrators (though I still maintain I was right and you were wrong - Face-grin.svg). General Ization Talk 04:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nah, it's okay. I'm over it. :) Parsley Man (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He did it again. Parsley Man (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And with four reversions under his belt, he has been reported to WP:AN3RR. Parsley Man (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)