Jump to content

User talk:General Ization/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Hi there

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

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

google?

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

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

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

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

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

Hey bud,

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

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


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

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

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

Revert my edit to "Annie Dookhan"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raiyan HA

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

John Jay

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

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

mediation request

I have sent a message to transporterman re this issue.

thankyou geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbacks Again (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Dispute over content involving Australian History, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Asterisk as correction indicator

I am my own source been using the internet for decades when you correct a typo from a previous message you put the * after your correction not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.32.187 (talk)

The proper way is still by placing the asterisk BEFORE the correction, since it showcases that you are following with a correction. Looks like you’ve done it wrong for decades. The Real The Z (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<font color="#006633">General <i>Ization</i></font>]]</span> <sup>''[[User talk:General Ization|<font color="#000666">Talk </font>]] ''</sup>: General Ization Talk

to

<span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup>: General Ization Talk

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

General Yagoda revisions

I've reverted your reversion of the full quote about Yagoda's trial. I've explained on the talk page for that article.PVarjak (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello General Ization:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of Kal Spelletich

Hi General Ization, it appears that this page meets all the requirements for review and acceptance, though you don't think so. Can you please explain your concerns so that they can be addressed? Thank you

Marylee1234 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marylee1234: Until the article is actually accepted and moved to article space, it does not exist for the purposes of linking to it from other articles. This does not reflect a judgment on the quality of the article; you must simply wait for the article to be reviewed and moved to the public space of the encyclopedia before claiming that the subject is notable and qualifies for an article. General Ization Talk 20:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, General Ization. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, General Ization.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Unrelatable indicting.

When I fixed grammar in wikiHow article (changed one sentence from past perfect to present perfect) I was indicted for vandalism by General Ization, which is not considerable as reasonable for me. Even if I did a mistake in that sentence by misunderstanding, it shouldn't be considered as vandalism at least.

Do I not understand something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamro2000 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC) ‎Hamro2000 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hamro2000: Yes, apparently you do not understand English grammar. Whether or not you find it "considerable as reasonable", please stop making grammar "corrections" to articles here which in fact introduce grammatical and other errors, as well as edits that deviate from our Wikipedia Manual of Style. Your continuing to do so after already being warned represents vandalism. General Ization Talk 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Weird edit

I don't know why I made this weird edit. It obviously didn't fit my edit summary. You were right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Perhaps it's late where you are (as it is here). No worries. General Ization Talk 05:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News

Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen.

>>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<<
>>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<<

Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year.

March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.)

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words).

May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words).

June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words).

2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated!

July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words).

August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words).

September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words).

October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words).

November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words).

2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating!

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

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 Keira1996.

>>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<<
>>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:2.6.38.64

2.6.38.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user immediately. I'll start cleaning up. Thanks nagualdesign 14:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

...Oh, looks like you did all the tidying already. nagualdesign 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:69.126.139.22. Thank you. FormalDude talk 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Think I have that one covered. Review the IP's edit and its timing v/v other edits and the immediately preceding block pertaining to that same article. Also note that adding a "citation needed" template (even if improperly applied) as any IP's very first edit is suspect (especially when removing a perfectly reliable citation in the same edit). General Ization Talk 22:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I do see those edits by the blocked user. But it looks like that citation that User:69.126.139.22 removed was actually a citation to a dead link, and therefore good faith. I just deleted it myself. So that may not have been the same user on a different IP, and therefore doesn't warrant an immediate level 5 warning. FormalDude talk 03:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
FormalDude, we don't remove deadlinks. They are the evidence needed for someone to track down a source that might be live or archived. Please restore it, and please ping me here. Maybe I can find it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I already replaced it with a link to archive.org. General Ization Talk 04:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I did not know. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. —FormalDude talk 07:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Regis is arberesh.

So ask it by your self, you igniorant . Tell the truth . Do you know what arberesh are ? When you dont know a thing take a step back . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.129.245 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the Arbëreshë people are. Do you know that when they immigrate to the United States, they are still Italian Americans? Do not attack other editors here unless you would like to be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Boves massacre

I'm not sure I can understand the Wikipedia policies, and how far can go the admin's power. However, did I delete or edited a legitimate talk page comment? I only asked why he undone all my work, bringing back the page to a poorer condition. Then the conversation is disappeared and I sent a new message? Did I do something bad? Maybe the conversation has been deleted by me? If it's so, then I must have done it by mistake. All what I wanted was to improve the article about the Boves massacre, then I wanted know why my work has been deleted. We had a conversation, then it's vanished (maybe by my fault, I don't know) so I reposted it. My meaning was to help Wikipedia, not to make a damage, but if you think what I do is bad for the project then I can also quit, for the Wikipedia's sake. Do you wanna see the vanished conversation, so you can have a better idea on what's happened? Best regards, Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Charlie Foxtrot66: Hohum made a conscious decision to remove your comments from their Talk page here. Your restoring the comments, as here, and by doing so overriding the editor's decision, constitutes harassment. If you think that Hohum has acted improperly, you can take up the issue at the Administrator's Noticeboard, but don't repeatedly restore your comments at that editor's Talk page. General Ization Talk 18:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Charlie Foxtrot66: Also, you might actually read the replies you had already received to your questions, which appear to me to be legitimate answers to them, whether or not you like them. General Ization Talk 18:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine. I am sorry for my bad behaviour, I only wanted to give a help. Maybe is better if I stop working on Wikipedia and I let you do it that you can do better? I am sure that you can edit the Boves massacre and many other articles much better than how I do, even if I don't understand why you didn't do it yet. You know, it's a work, and I am not getting payed, I cannot take the risk of seeing everything deleted in this way, maybe is better if you edit the articles and I spend my time in some other way. Have a nice evening Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Charlie Foxtrot66: We agree then that it will be better for you to stop editing Wikipedia if you are not prepared to work collaboratively with other editors, for them to revert your edits when they are found to be less than constructive, and to listen when they give you good advice. General Ization Talk 16:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, General Ization.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~6 weeks
1,031 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Mauro Milhomem

Thanks for the edits at the Mauro Milhomem entry on List of rampage killers, you may also want edit the Mauro Milhomem page on Amok Wiki. Can you give me more information about the case? Since i did not know the date where it happened, and you apparently added that the incident happaened on June 1.--Cientific124 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Only what I read (machine-translated) at the cited source concerning his wife's suicide. Can't find anything else on it. "... her husband and seven people died while four others were injured on Sunday morning [published 6/6/80, the preceding Sunday being 6/1/80]. ... The pilot [aimed] the plane at the Presidente Hotel owned by his mother-in-law ... but failed to reach the target completely. He hit the right wing on two light poles, [struck] a two-story building and struck the central ridge of Praca da Rotula, the main Barra do Garcas." General Ization Talk 20:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC):
Thanks, sorry for posting this, i posted because i don't know to count days propely, thanks!. And also, i will remove the "Piloted an Embraer EMB 721 Sertanejo single-engine aircraft into a hotel owned by a family member." text in the Additional notes, because it is not appropriate for the article.--Cientific124 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Not appropriate how? General Ization Talk 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. But i think its because the Addtional notes are only used for brief texts concerning the fate of the perpetrator, probably to not make the entry long.--Cientific124 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cientific124: Since a) there is no article for Milhomem (nor enough sources found to justify one) and b) the only source is not in English, I don't think the minimal explanation of the reason he appears in this list is excessive by any means. I went to the effort to assure myself that he even belonged on this list (as the preface to the section notes, airplane crashes are hard to characterize as rampage killings, in this case without knowing that he apparently targeted his mother-in-law's hotel). There's no reason the next editor to read this should have to go to the same effort. Unless you can find that policy documented somewhere, I'd ask you to restore the information I added. General Ization Talk 20:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@General Ization: Since Mauro Milhomem is a rare case of suicide by pilot in Brazil, he will probably get an article, i presume that i will eventually find more information concerning him, and make an article on him, so people read. But i suspect why info on this case is so hard to find, since it is a suicide by pilot in Brazil with a large death toll, which the country probably never had a case like this.--Cientific124 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@General Ization: I finally discovered more info on this case, i think i will probably make an article on it.--Cientific124 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@General Ization:I created an article about the disaster. here.--Cientific124 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I made a few improvements, mostly English grammar, phrasing and spelling. However, please check, since I was not reading the non-English sources you used, that I didn't introduce any false information in the process. General Ization Talk 02:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits!.--Cientific124 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, General Ization!

Happy New Year!

General Ization,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 07:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Jordan Maron

Hello General Ization, just fyi: I have asked for semi-protection until the crowd calms down ;), but the request is still queued. GermanJoe (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

Take the time to look to the consensus listed in the archives of the Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt talk page. The content of the reception section of that page was debated at length and a consensus was reached. You've repeatedly reverted both the UKS and Tina Fey pages to include the edits of a single user who vandalized both pages to add all of the content you've reinstated. I'm simply attempting to counter two instances of vandalism; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop slapping needless warnings on my talk page. 2423tgiuowf 22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk • contribs)

Please point out the "consensus" at Talk:Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt/Archive 1#Keeping the controversies mentioned in the "reception" section. I see none; I see a proposal you made, and no acceptance by other editors (and the advice "It is undeniably true that you are a minority of one. If you want more opinions, start an RfC or something."). If you would like to restart that discussion, please do, but do not revert to your preferred content again unless you would like to visit WP:AN3. General Ization Talk 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
User Quirky-artist-charlie proposed that the controversies be summed up in "one or two sentences," a proposal I agreed to; ergo, the WP:CONSENSUS. I drafted the one or two sentences, per the WP:CONSENSUS, and while one user still objected (the user you've cited, who was operating under the incorrect assumption that I wanted the information removed entirely [ergo, his comment about my being a "minority of one"], which was clearly false given that I later included the information on the page personally after charlie and I agreed to the length of the descriptions), these were the changes that were ultimately implemented without controversy, per the above WP:Consensus. Another user (who had a history of adding these sorts of things to pages and who has been AWOL from the site for months) later went and reinstated his original edits without taking it to the talk page, as well as re-writing the critical reception for a film on the page for Fey to read more negatively (indicating a pattern of WP:NPOV). The pages remained this way until one user reverted my reversions, citing my lack of reasoning, which I then gave in reinstating the original reversions of the original case of vandalism. That's really it. This seems to be a simple misunderstanding to me. Renamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk • contribs — Preceding unsigned comment added 23:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you think I can't read? "If Anonymouse5454 has their way, then we would be bleaching a significant part of this show's reception to make it appear entirely positive, when opposition to redface/yellowface would say a little otherwise. At the very least, there should be a sentence or two regarding the show's very evident controversy." This was not an "agreement" between you and Quirky-artist-charlie; it was an expression of dissatisfaction with your edits up to that point. Q-A-C made no further comment in that discussion. There was and is no consensus. And when you edited the article today, you in fact showed that Quirky-artist-charlie's concern was well-founded. You were, as another editor stated, a minority of one in feeling that this content shoujld be removed, and you still are. Leave it alone. General Ization Talk 23:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely wrong, but I won't be pursing this any further. I would suggest that you reassess the way you speak to other users. That was out of bounds and ridiculously combative. Renamed user 2423tgiuowf (talk
"That was out of bounds and ridiculously combative." Referring to what? General Ization Talk 23:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Laverne Cox

The Internet Movie Database supports the change in date, unless there are two persons with the same name. I reverted the first edit because the user put different years in two different places. But the IMDB supports the older age (b. 1972). So I think that the edit should be restored and second message stricken. Unless I have missed something here, of course. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical data, because it is user-edited. See WP:CITINGIMDB. And yes, you have missed something: 1) that we have reliable, cited sources in the article for the 1984 birthdate, and 2) that to change content here, you must provide a reliable, cited source that supports the change (which you repeatedly did not do). General Ization Talk 03:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you were the IP. General Ization Talk 03:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It remains that the only reliable source we have places the date of birth in 1984. General Ization Talk 03:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:184.147.29.185

Reported. I did a mass rollback of the anon's mass deletions. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Milwaukee Bucks

Hello! I just wanted to let you know I reported the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Happy editing, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"universally known as the auto capitol of the world"

it may be a quote (from nba.com), but it is a huge overstatement :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedee73 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dedee73: The subjects of our articles are allowed to make overstatements; we are not allowed to "correct" them. If you think the quote should be removed from the article, discuss it with other editors on the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 06:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

My initial (and skeptical) assumption was that the first warning regarded my usage of quotes from the LA Times review and the link you inserted was a response to my issue with the lack of citation for the first sentence (hence the "citation needed"). First, was my usage of quotes from an issue at all as far as Wikipedia's copyright policy is concerned, and if so, was my paraphrasing in my next revision acceptable? (I understand that Malik Shabazz's beef was with the quality of my sourcing, but I'll resolve that with him and the talk page.)

After reading your second warning on my talk page and your second revision to the article however, it seems you're convinced that I copied from the link you referenced. I did not copy from that link - the only copied text I retained verbatim was that which was in the article before I started editing it. Second, I know this is probably a better question for the talk page, but would it at least be worth it to re-cite that textbook link without re-inserting (while quoting or paraphrasing instead) the copied text?

Thanks for your time. DrPepper47 (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion on the article's Talk page. General Ization Talk 17:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Sorry to bother you, I know you're not an admin, but you probably know more about this stuff than me. Are we allowed to use rollback indiscriminately on the following block-evading IP: 184.146.207.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks in advance. BytEfLUSh Talk 02:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@BytEfLUSh: My opinion is yes, we are. However, they've now been blocked, which should make life easier. General Ization Talk 02:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thank you anyway, at least now I know in case more of his socks appear. Hopefully, not anytime soon. =) BytEfLUSh Talk 02:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Ization/Archive_13&oldid=1084040950"