User talk:General Ization/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ocean

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)

Tasmanian wolf

Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The thylacine is also known as the Tasmanian wolf. It is a stunning example of convergent evolution, a flash eating marsupial that resembles a wolf because it has evolved to fill the same ecological neich in Australasia. It is not convergent with a tiger or any kind of big cat. The name Tasmania tiger is simply alliteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.55.115 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And you're telling this why, exactly? General Ization ^Talk 00:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

But since you've brought it up, see the article Thylacine for the explanation of why the name "Tasmanian tiger" is just as common as "tasmanian wolf" for this extinct marsupial. It has nothing to do with its genetics or evolution, nor with alliteration. You might consider spending as much time here reading as you do writing; it's amazing what you can learn this way. General Ization ^Talk 00:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

And in fact, "... a recent study proposes that thylacine was more of an ambush predator as opposed to a pursuit predator. In fact, the predatory behaviour of the thylacine was probably closer to ambushing felids than to large pursuit canids. Consequently, at least in terms of the postcranial anatomy, the vernacular name of 'Tasmanian tiger' may be more apt than 'marsupial wolf'." General Ization ^Talk 00:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster Country Day School Controversy

Discussing the addition of a "controversy" section on the wikipedia page Lancaster Country Day School. Although the incident occurred in the past, it continues to have effects on the school today and continues to concern many parents. It is completely factual and is encyclopedic content. It could be relocated under "history", but it involves a notable change in leadership which belongs on wikipedia as a part of the school's history. The event caused mistrust between the Upper School and the administration/Board, which still permeates through the school today and contributes to the unrest caused by the expansion plan.

--Theburningringoffire (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Theburningringoffire: Please take the discussion to the article's Talk page, where other interested editors can participate, not to my Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 18:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to message

Here is the follow up with details to confirm the changes that were made and submitted to Wikipedia;

1. No Surrender MC is not a Gang but a Motorcycle Club; www.nosurrendersc.com & www.nosurrendermcnomads.com

2. Added locations; USA - https://www.facebook.com/no.surrender.mc.nomads/?ref=hl Lebanon - https://www.facebook.com/No-Surrender-MC-Lebanon-911582432265113/?fref=ts Australia - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010650610676&fref=ts United Kingdom - Page not available yet.

Lebanon #2 - http://www.crimesite.nl/no-surrender-opent-chapter-in-libanon/ USA #2 -http://www.crimesite.nl/no-surrender-opent-chapter-in-de-vs-video/

USA #3 -http://nosurrendermcnomads.com/

Please let me know if any other information is required and needed.

(Jdl6422 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC))

@Jdl6422: This information is not needed on my Talk page but as citations (of published, reliable sources) accompanying the relevant content you added to the article. See WP:CITE. General Ization ^Talk 03:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Loving Troll

Thanks very much for cleaning up my Talk Page following a drunken editor employing his sock puppet, having a laugh. Ps. who on earth is 'graceful slick' :-) Twobells (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: You're welcome. I assume the reference is to TheGracefulSlick, but I don't know what event the IP was referring to. General Ization ^Talk 15:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems I may have been threatened, which is badge of honour as far as I am concerned, as it means certain recent edits have validity, best wishes and thanks again! Twobells (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Imhotep

I'm addressing your message:

"...I noticed that you made a change to an article, Imhotep, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page...."

Yes, you have made a mistake. The source is Wikipedia and its sources. As you will notice, Wikipedia referred to Imhotep as an Egyptian polymath (when he would actually be Egyptian and a polymath because there were no "Egyptian polymath"). In truth, it would have made him the first polymath of record. See Imhotep. Imhotep polymath came before other noted polymaths by 3000 years. See Polymath. The polymath article seems racist now that I read it again. The whites like Galileo and da Vinci are "polymaths" while the Semites (which are white by today's standards) and Africans are distinctly different polymaths (i.e. Persian polymath or Egyptian Polymath). Id. Is there a standard based on geography? I see nothing that would one to that conclusion. We know the Greeks and Romans were educated in Egypt (and not the other way around), so chances are the polymath-ism would originate in Africa even the term has its origins outside of Africa. Id. Also, note, there are many non-cited statements in the Wikipedia pages, for instance, the original polymath statement about Imhotep, why was my contribution of particular interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Please see WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. You have drawn a variety of inferences from a variety of sources, but you have not cited a single, reliable source that claims that Imhotep was the first polymath. We are not permitted to make inferences and state them as fact here, nor to state our own opinions; all claims stated here must be supported by reliable sources. As to why your edit was of interest while there may be other unsourced claims on Wikipedia, it was because you just made it and I just saw it. We do not justify the insertion of crap here because other crap exists, nor are we required to address all the other crap first. Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. General Ization ^Talk 20:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if Egyptian and a polymath, Imhotep would have been an Egyptian polymath, as stated (and note the cited source). General Ization ^Talk 20:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm going to try a different approach in hopes that I can reach you because I think you are misunderstanding me. The citation for Imhotep (#2) does not refer to Imhotep as an "Egyptian polymath" (likely because it's not a thing). Imhotep is actually referred to as an "all-round polymath". The source does not overtly racialize or add ethnocentricity to Imhotep as a polymath. My objective with the changes was two parts: 1. based on the timeline, establish Imhotep as the first polymath in history (not Egyptian polymath); and, 2. remove the racial or ethnic component from the polymath because it is really not a thing. small>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 December 2015‎ (UTC)

@Othelllo: I think you are seeing some sort of conspiracy where there is none. There is no "racial or ethnic component" to remove from the use of "Egyptian polymath" because it is not asserted in the article that "Egyptian polymath" is a "thing". The article asserts that Imhotep was Egyptian and a polymath, hence that Imhotep was an Egyptian polymath. It is a standard to include the nationality of the subject with an occupation or other adjective phrase that best describes the reason for their notability in the opening sentences of articles here. I can see no reason why this article should be any different. As to your first claim, you have still failed to supply any reliable source (blogs and fringe sites such as ancient.origins.com are not reliable) to support it, as another editor has already indicated by again reverting your insertion of it. You may believe and/or wish it to be true, but until you can provide some objective, reliable source to support it, it will not appear in the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 03:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: This is lunacy; it is no more a thing as a black professor or General Ization. Listen, the very cite calls Imhotep a "physican and all-round polymath" - why are you ignoring that point? Why not just refer to him as a "polymath" or "all-round polymath"? All-round is, I think, a British term, but still better than "Egyptian polymath". Also, you say it's a standard, then why isn't the standard applied to da Vinci and Galileo? I really hope you don't personalize this because this is really not a personal attack. unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 December 2015‎ (UTC)

@Othelllo: Apparently you haven't bothered to look:

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, more commonly Leonardo da Vinci ... was an Italian polymath ...

Galileo Galilei ... was an Italian astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician ...

Now please drop the stick. General Ization ^Talk 00:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@General Ization: Not on the Polymath page but ok. You win. Stick dropped. unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 29:19, 28 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Lancaster Country Day School

Thanks for looking out for things that aren't newsworthy and that are too promotional on the Lancaster Country Day School page. I'm the communications director for the school. We think some students who are upset about renovation decisions are using the Wiki to vent and feel heard. I know that wiki editors have the final say and are good judges of content, so I'd like to point out for your consideration the sections "Renovation," "Demotion of Daphna" and "Campus." Do you think they are worthy of an encyclopedia entry on the school? DulceyA 12/28/15DulceyA (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Portadown College

These persons achieved great successes in our town on a global scale. I would ask you to stop editing our town's contributions. Articles of evidence and references were added but you deleted them. Ernestpem (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ernestpem: Read the information I posted on your talk page, and the articles linked within those notices. If you continue to insert these names in the article having been advised of these policies, your contributions will continue to be reverted and eventually you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 16:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You can clearly see they are notable persons!! What is the problem??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestpem (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

You and I had an edit conflict reporting the same vandalism-only account. I discovered the account because they submitted a frivolous edit to AFC, and when a clearly frivolous edit is submitted to AFC, it is a good idea to check whether the editor is a vandal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Timur Gareev (Timur Gareyev)

Sorry about trying to make changes without proper citation. I am not an editor, nor do I want to be;) since I have a conflict of interest and onlyy want credible and correct info out of respect to both Wikipedia and the subject, I hope some will take the time to make my suggested corrections. The info for Timur Gareev is 2 years outdated and incomplete. There are several references confirming correct spelling of his name, current peak rating and recent achievements. A simple google search will yield credible sources such as uscf, us chess championship and chessbase. A current photo is advised as the photo is several years old as well. And thank you for you many contrbutions to Wikipedia. I am a huge supporter of the site and appreciate all the time and effort involved in keeping Wikipedia a credible and reliable reference. Blindfoldking (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ization!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Ization, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

A cheeseburger for you!

Because your the most American person I know! GeniusMasterGeneral (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

citation needed regarding Japanese language

Hello,

I see you have reverted my edit to the page "Japanese language" because tag "citation needed" is template and should not be removed. You also stated that I did not provide edit summary.

As far as I know I have provided "summary" twice. See my following qoute.

1st time: It is impossible to prove something that does not exist by showing the nothing (evidence). It is burden of anyone who claims the existence of such relationship. Not the other way around.

2nd time: I have provided the reason in my edit summary saying that "the citation to (prove) the non-existence of relationship between the two languages" is not logical. There is no logical way of proving something that does not exit. The template has to be changed

Regarding the template, how could tag "citation needed" be a template (by that I assume it means mandatory) of a specific statement of the subject? I mean, how could this statement in the page "Japanese has no genetic relationship with Chinese" be specially required to citation?

I believe your role is a moderator or adminstrator, but not to be an authority of a specific subject, right? So I am not sure how would you decide this statement need a citation.

Last and most importantly, as I have said twice in my edit summary "how could one provide something to prove the NON existence of something"? It is only logical to request evidence to a claim of something that does exist. Therefor, how could that "citation" be required? What about every other sentence in the whole page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadhund (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Nomadhund: You provided no edit summary with your second or your third reverts. See my original edit summary here: "It is entirely possible to cite a reliable source to state that two languages are not genetically related, and if we make the statement it should be sourced." If the statement is indeed incapable of being sourced or proven, we should not be making it in the encyclopedia and it must be removed. Also see the warning on your Talk page, which clearly explains that you should not remove maintenance templates from articles unless the issue the template identifies is addressed. While you think it is a non-issue, at least two other editors (the editor who originally placed the template and me) think it has not, and your continued removal of the template after learning it is controversial represents edit warring and will result in a report at WP:AN3 if you continue. Please stop now. General Ization ^Talk 00:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I did provide summary twice, I can not explain why you did not see them. Secondly regarding the article, as far as I know, please correct me if you have a source otherwise, there is no linguistic school that claims a genetic relationship between Japanese and Chinese, that is why I said providing a source to support a relation should not be required. As I see that, few minutes ago author "phoenix7777" just provided a source, I will leave it as such, otherwise I would have removed that sentence as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadhund (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)

It is possible for an expert in a reliable, published source to say that "there is no linguistic school that claims a genetic relationship between Japanese and Chinese", and then for us to cite that statement. You or someone else having said it in the article here is not sufficient without a citation, which is why the {{citation needed}} template was added. General Ization ^Talk 00:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Team Foundation Server

Thanks for your response on the help desk question about the Team Foundation Server page. I want to clarify that the product name has not been changed. However, this product comes in 2 flavors - one that users install on their own infrastructure , called Team Foundation Server and the other that is hosted on Microsoft's infrastcruture, called Visual Studio Team Services. I work in this product's marketing group and what we want to do is lead using the latter product i.e. VSTS. Currently the article talks about TFS and says that it can also be used in the cloud as VSTS. We want to inverse this by talking about VSTS and saying that the product can be installed on your own infrastructure as TFS. Hope this makes it a little more clear. I know its a bit confusing.

Aupsy (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)aupsy

@Aupsy: What Microsoft's product marketing group wants its customers to buy isn't Wikipedia's concern, and as a paid employee of Microsoft you should not be editing any article concerning Microsoft or its products or services here. See WP:COI. My best suggestion is the one I made at the Help Desk, now somewhat modified by your admission that you are a Microsoft employee: that you make the suggestion on the article's Talk page that someone (not you or your colleagues at Microsoft) create a new article on VSTS to replace the redirect I created. I stand by my position that the existing title of the article accurately reflects what the article describes, and should not be changed. General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Matter Sent to Dispute Resolution

I have sent the matter to Dispute Resolution. No one anywhere has the right to say anything that want about anybody in print. Especially if it is not true. That is a violation of human rights. There is no translation of Sandor Verbovszki's book. If I am blocked I will challenge the block. Victim's of slander have rights in America and in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I have tried to help you. How do you say in Hungarian, "As you make your bed, so you must lie in it"? Good luck. General Ization ^Talk 02:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I beat you to reporting the legal threat. Sometimes we have an editor who doesn't understand how dispute resolution works, or that the boomerang may return. Thank you for trying to warn the editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, re: Martin Shkreli edit

I am absolutely persuaded that his birth date is the 17th of March 1983 and not the 1st of April 1983, I think the references supporting the April 1 claim are unreliable and his personal tweets and listed information on his chess.com page are more creditable, I can understand why you would think otherwise, but what would I need to prove that he was born on March 17th? Zaostao (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: You may be persuaded, but I am not. Shkreli's profile on chess.com is self-prepared, so by its very character is not reliable. I can't say why he would want to use a false birthdate there, but Shkreli hasn't impressed me to date as a model of sound judgment and honesty, and I can think of a few reasons he might want to avoid maintaining a consistent public identity. The Vanity Fair citation is highly reliable, and the magazine employs fact-checkers, so the information will have been vetted. Unless you can find and cite some other, not self-published and reliable source that supports a change in his birthdate, please leave it as it is. General Ization ^Talk 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: This is a very disparaging comment, it seems as if you are judging him largely on his price gouging and his frivolous purchases, I have talked to him at length in video chats and on skype and have played League of Legends with him on occasion also, he is not a monster like you are making him out to be and I think IT'S VERY UNJUST that you're listing his birth date falsely as a April 1st (PROBABLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE OR SOMETHING EQUALLY OFFENIVE). I will not forget this and will make it my dying mission to have his birth date listed as March 17, 1983 (AS IT SHOULD CURRENTLY BE).

Zaostao (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: I didn't say he was a monster (though I reserve the right to think so); I said that he may have reasons to post a false birthdate on a site that makes no effort to verify it, and that his posting there is not a verifiable, reliable source as required in any biography of a living person on Wikipedia. There is no reason (and you have offered none) to regard the Vanity Fair citation as unreliable. Is it really worth your getting blocked for violating Wikipedia policies to have your way? General Ization ^Talk 21:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: You implied that based on your opinion of his character that self-reported facts about himself are supposedly to be held as untruths, this is clearly prejudice against him, it was his job to make money as a businessman, yet he is lambasted for making money and eventually has his character assassinated like in this current situation, and the Vanity Fair reference was mentioned because it linked to an expired or removed article at the time of editing (though I reserve the right to think both references are POPPYCOCK regardless). This is also not a matter of me "getting my way", this is a matter of an error being fixed, and threatening me with a user or IP block for a genuine edit request like this is very petty and telling of how you are unable to remove your emotions from this matter and remain impartial.

Zaostao (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: You have my opinion. If you would like another, you are welcome to bring this up at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I think I know what the outcome will be, but I encourage you to do so. If you repeat that edit, knowing that, as I have explained, it violates Wikipedia policy, I will bring up the matter there myself. General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, primary sources such as this are generally considered less reliable than independent third party sources. Anyone may say anything they wish to about themselves, and have a definite conflict of interest regarding personal information. Reaching out directly to an article's subject is also WP:OR and should not be done at all. Scr★pIron^IV 21:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Okay, so you're ending the discourse and you have conveniently brushed over my "what would I need to prove that he was born on March 17th?" question of my original post, I will have this error fixed, it is only a matter of time, but I see that you're trying to postpone this because of your obvious and, in my opinion, despicable prejudice and hatred towards Martin, which for someone who has been on wikipedia for as long as yourself, is rather saddening.

Zaostao (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: No, I gave you good advice and a link to the next course of action in your quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Good luck. General Ization ^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: You must have a very loose definition of what 'good advice' is, but okay, I'll start towards having this error fixed without your help. Great talking to you, much love!

Zaostao (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi?

Hi, General, that was fun. You'd better let me know if you'd like this page semi'd for a while. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I'm thinking that would be helpful, if only for a little while. Thanks! General Ization ^Talk 21:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Vonda Phelps

Internet Movie Database has the same death date: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0679850/ Czolgolz (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Czolgolz: IMDb is user-edited and is not a reliable source (either) for dates of birth or death. See WP:RS/IMDB. As much or more than any other kind of edit, we need a reliable source to declare someone dead here. General Ization ^Talk 02:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, could you head over to Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War II and argue your case there? They keep trying to delete dubious entries.Czolgolz (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment in that thread and your link to our discussion should be sufficient to make the case. General Ization ^Talk

4 days' semi

I guess 2 days wasn't enough. I didn't realize you were so popular. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC).

• And as soon as the four days expired… yeah. One doesn't want to shut out good-faith IP's, but this is ridiculous. How many posts from good-faith IPs and brand-new users do you actually get? Bishonen | talk 10:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Very, very few here on my Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 12:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

One month, perhaps, then? Let me know if you don't like it. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC).

No, probably a good idea. I rarely template what I think could be newbie errors. This one's no newbie, by the way. Note how the signatures on every one of their recent posts are falsified. I'm leaning toward sock, though I don't know of whom. General Ization ^Talk 12:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Tamar Braxton

Hey, General Ization, Shallowharold here. There's a problem on the page for Tamar Braxton. There's an editor named Camerong1401 that you warned before about putting up unsourced content. Well, they are at it again and this time he chose to edit again - the only difference being that he left unreliable sources and removed the reliable source that came from directly the PR department of her record label. His sources included - of all things - a gossip blog and a Tumblr post that was clearly from a fan. I was wondering what to do about them since they continue to add unsourced and/or unreliable content. Thank you. Shallowharold (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Incredibly fast. Regards, CoconutPaste (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Untrue

I responded to the points for removal which were either false (that no other article has areas within cities in biographical section) and shown examples and that the insinuation that I was only adding this to repeat Calgary for political purposes. The contributor never addressed my points or responded at all, yet I'm suppose to differ to that contributor which a lack of consensus means I'm wrong?? Cladeal832 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cladeal832: You're supposed to engage in discussion on the Talk page, even if you think the other party is wrong or is "doing it wrong", not repeatedly revert to your preferred version, unless and until a consensus is established. WP:EW is pretty straightforward. Read it. General Ization ^Talk 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what the other contributor did and then you sided with him or her. He/she reverted me edit after days of nothing. It should stand with my version until the other contributor gets a consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cladeal832: Sorry, no. Today's edit war started with this edit – yours. The other editor twice encouraged you to resume the Talk page discussion, and you refused the invitation. Also, I didn't "side" with anyone; I have no opinion about the content you were edit-warring over. I cautioned you that you were approaching 3RR, generally cause for a block. The other editor also received a warning. General Ization ^Talk 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no to you. This edit war began with this edit this edit, his or her. I didn't revert it. The other editor encouraged to discusss, but never ACTUALLY discusses it. He uses untruths and hyperbolic statements. I've countered them, and he doesn't respond. Then a week goes by and he just reverts the edit. I've actually discuses and researched by position and he hasn't. He doesn't respond so I revert it to my original edit since clearly he doesn't have much of a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 January 2016‎ (UTC)

We're done here. The other editor doesn't need consensus to remove content felt to be inconsistent with policy; you need it to add or restore it. Unless you achieve consensus on the article's Talk page, don't continue to revert or assert your version unless you'd like to take some time off from editing. General Ization ^Talk 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the standard for removal. By your logic, I don't need consensus to add information that's consistent with Wiki policy which I did. I added information that was correct and researched and consistent with other politicians' articles. It was good faith edit. I went to the Talk Page to discuss this and researched by answer to respond to just subjective critics of something that clearly he just didn't like Calgary mentioned too much (that's not Wiki policy). Despite his invitation, the other user didn't actually engage and when I pointed out that he was making false points (that my edit was inconsistent with other politicians' articles despite me showing many example to counter that) he never replied. There was no consensus. Again, it isn't Wiki policy to revert even if you think it's correct (invitation to Talk Page or not). Whatever I did, you made a mistake of siding with one person over another when the other contributor kept reverting my edits which is no different than what you are accusing me of doing. You were wrong, I don't understand how it's okay for you to critic others without noticing that BOTH parties in an edit get warnings. Despite his invitation, I wrote on the Talk Page and he didn't so his invitation was disingenuous (that's not just my opinion, but him both not actually writing on the Talk Page as well as impugning my motives which isn't part of Wiki policy). Cladeal832 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cladeal832: Once again, I sided with no one. You received a caution from me concerning your approaching 3RR in conjunction with a warning by another editor, a warning also provided to the other participant in the edit war. I have not taken and will not take a position in the discussion concerning the disputed content itself (though you would probably not like it if I did). Now please get over it and move on. General Ization ^Talk 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems familiar

Hello G. This removal of maintenance tags and adding stub tags to articles that aren't rings a bell. I think it was sometime last year but I can't remember for sure. If you can come up with the previous editor we can file and SPI. If it doesn't jog your memory please don't worry about it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It does jog my memory, but it's actually more like a fast walk. I'm not coming up with anything useful. Thanks! General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I intended to revert the vandalism, but I accidentally reverted your edit. I undid my contribution for that reason. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Scott Hitchcock

Sorry if that was confusing, I think we hit the speedy button at the same time! I wasn't trying to revert you or anything. Thanks for the good work on here. Blythwood (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: No worries, and thanks. General Ization ^Talk 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for providing that feedback about my edit to the Gibbon page. I work in ape conservation and found a useful link substantiating my edit. I hope I did it right and appreciate your feedback. Here's the link for your reference from National Geographic.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/03/gibbon-conservation-center-working-to-save-south-asias-hoolock-gibbons-other-small-apes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamandag (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing member

Why can't Paul be in the ofwgta Johnthebutcher010 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnthebutcher010: Is Paul "an English comedian, television presenter, actor, writer and radio disc-jockey [who] achieved fame using his comedic drag queen character, Lily Savage, and later became well known for presenting TV shows as himself, such as The Paul O'Grady Show"? No? I didn't think so. So stop linking to the article Paul O'Grady. I think it unlikely that the Paul O'Grady you are talking about is notable at all, but he certainly isn't that one. General Ization ^Talk 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Toyota

Hi,

I changed a notation in an article about a Toyota marketing slogan, and you pulled it because I didn't include a citation.

I did verify the change-- there are numerous YouTube videos of Toyota advertisements from the late 70s with the correct slogan available. I failed to see the need to cite one slogan out of an entire list, and I am NOT going to put citations on the rest of the list as well-- it would be too cluttered and it would be, in my opinion, of dubious value.

To anyone that is over 45 years old, the mistake is very obvious-- anyone watching TV during that time will hear the jingle in their head. That's how I realized the original slogan was wrong.

If you'd rather have the incorrect information in Wikipedia because I didn't PROVE I know what I'm talking about because I don't have time to mess around with how to properly cite a YouTube video, so be it.

Allpurposeguru (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Allpurposeguru: If you "don't have time" to cite your changes, even if you think they're obvious or because you think "it would be too cluttered", you'll find your changes reverted, and if you do it often enough you'll be blocked from editing. Any questions? General Ization ^Talk 22:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

the recent spate of vandalism

Honestly, I was surprised there was a targeted spate of vandalism. haha. Winterysteppe (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2015 SB Attack

Hey General, thanks for catching that weird edit before I did. On that topic, being the worst attack since 9/11, there has been some edit warring between anon users and another user. I left warnings on the appropriate parties pages. After that point, if it starts getting out of hand, what do you recommend I do as I am not an admin nor do I have any special privileges? Thanks for the help!TJH2018 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Attack page

So sorry about the accidental template. When I speedied the page the sock created, it templated you by mistake. So sorry, and thank you for dealing with these socks. My bad. GAB^Hello! 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: NP, I knew precisely how it happened as I've done it myself. General Ization ^Talk 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Code Pink

Hey. Psst. WP:RFPP. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Already requested. General Ization ^Talk 02:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, General Ization. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Something I noticed.
Message added 03:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^Hello! 03:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Came across your talk page removing some starship bot posts - seems you take a lot of flak so I just wanted to thank you for your contributions and for the time you put into keep the community ticking along -- samtar talk or stalk 22:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Good work on the Europefan socks. But then, I am a sock of you, so we know them when we see them! GABHello! 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

God, I hate that stuff... HalfShadow 03:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Marco Rubio

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk: Marco Rubio which you may care to weigh in on.   Spartan7W §   15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment on vandalism.

Yes, General Ization you said I had done some vandalism to List of most viewed YouTube videos, I would like to know WHAT I did vandalism. on the List of most viewed YouTube videos. I do not think I did any vandalism on that page, for I added more accurate views because it was last updated yesterday. I am confused how that was vandalism. Please respond - 22oharig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22oharig (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@22oharig: What my message to you said was that your edit was unconstructive. It was in a number of ways, but not the least of which in that the table expresses views in the (rounded) number of millions of views; your edit effectively multiplied every number of views by 1,000,000. Please pay closer attention to your edits. General Ization ^Talk 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@22oharig: Yes, I know what the template I placed on your Talk page says. If your intent was not to commit vandalism, that's very fine; please continue, but with more attention to the effect of your edits. General Ization ^Talk 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I did not know it multiplied it by 1,000,000! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22oharig (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon Invitation

Hey there! If you're still around the Columbus area, I'd like to invite you to attend Wikipedia Connection's Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon at the Ohio State University on Saturday, March 5, from 1 - 5 PM. You may be aware of Art+Feminism, but if not, it's a global event that brings together diverse communities to create and improve Wikipedia articles related to women in the arts. The purpose of this event is to help combat the lack of coverage women and art subjects receive due to less than 10% of Wikipedia editors being women. Anyone with an interest is welcome to join, and we're expecting a good mix of students, faculty, and veteran Wikipedians. If you have any questions or are interested, just let me know. In addition to the signup page above, we have an RSVP form here. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Queen of England

You reverted her? Just like that?[1] How dare you! Bishonen | talk 16:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I know, but what has Her Highness done for us lately? General Ization ^Talk 17:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

While you're here, what do you make of this? General Ization ^Talk 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd know what to think if it was an account trying to get autoconfirmed, but an IP? Search me. Some kind of test or practice run? Bishonen | talk 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

Neo-Nazi Party IP-wars

Request for semi-protection of People's Party – Our Slovakia - high risk of vandalism

Hi I am asking you for protect and maintain this page of new party in parliament of Slovakia. Supporters of this Neo-Nazi party are creating ip war about Populist, Nationalist, Neo-Nazi, Clerical fascism party ideologies and going to change it even with sourced informations.

• People's Party – Our Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: High risk of IP vandalism. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC) --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@ThecentreCZ: Please submit your request at WP:RFPP. I don't have the administrative authority to protect the page (but if I did I would still ask you to submit a request there). 16:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Help getting started...

I didn't mean you personally, so my apologies if it seemd that way. But really...if you were new here and tried to edit a page, even if erroneously...and you couldn't edit because it was semiprotected...wouldn't you just loose interest? The problem is not solved by semiprotecting the page. Perhaps bring it up there at the talk....

People being people: most don't like to read instructions, manuals, or anything that keeps them from being started. Lectonar (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Because, and I have been around here for a long time, people will not read instructions. They will just stop, especially newbies. Lectonar (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: If I was looking for a way to edit a page and couldn't find it (because the page was semi-protected), and while looking I saw (could hardly miss) a big notice at the top of the page that said "This is not the page to ask for help" and listed a half-dozen ways to (more effectively) seek help, I wouldn't get discouraged; I'd just click on one of those links. Which is indeed precisely what they should do. I think of it as constructive redirection. And no, I didn't take it personally, I just think your suggestion was not a realistic reflection of how admins, or editors in general, deal with such issues. In this particular circumstance, semi-protection seems a perfectly reasonable solution to me. But I leave it to you, having reconsidered as I requested. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think you're more interested in Wikipedia than most, so of course you would try to find a way around it....but believe me, most people won't. I will post to the talk page there, try to get a discussion going and see if semiprotection is seen as necessary. If semiprotection is consensus, then I would be happy to implement it. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request?

I'm extremely confused - why did you sign this editor's unblock request? SQL^{Query me!} 17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Just noticed that myself. The editor put their unblock request inside an unclosed comment, which meant it was not parsed or processed. When I closed the comment so the unblock request would be visible, the parser saw the ~~~~ and substituted my signature instead of the vandal's. 17:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL, fair enough! SQL^{Query me!} 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

hey bro

please see the issue of mandhir singh chahal bro.. he is a genuine guy and he has won mr punjab 2015 by ptc punjabi and it is a great achievement to be won... the contetn written is all good. please help me out and got that deletion request cancelled. thanks bro Jeet456 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jeet456: As I have already advised you, please submit your comments here, not on my Talk page where they will have no effect on the deletion discussion. If you fail to contribute to the deletion discussion, the page will be deleted regardless of your comments elsewhere. General Ization ^Talk 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Limousine

Hi, you reverted to my former captions. I now think it is important to note that the style of the presidential car is that of a conventional limousine. Mind if I change your edit so that is noted? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Not at all. I was actually reverting the vandal who edited the article before you and was unsure how to or whether to reflect your later edit in the reverted version. Thanks for asking (though you didn't need to). General Ization ^Talk 01:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	random barnstar because i can. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice it

Your good edit at The Revenant (2015 film) was reverted a third time by the same transient editor. Did you notice it? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: Thanks, yes, but this edit appears to be defensible, as it does not speculate directly about Toussaint's nationality. Assuming the source (which I have not been able to review) supports the claim that "French-speaking trappers in the West at the time were not from France, but from Canada", and there is no controversy over whether Toussaint's accent is indeed French, the revised edit is not WP:OR as/in the same way as the earlier ones were. General Ization ^Talk 15:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just happened to see your note online. It occurred to me that it is just as likely that "French" speaking trappers would be as likely to come from Louisiana as from Canada so the wording might be adjusted. Either way, I'll support you on the adjustment or undo as needed. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

?

Why this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Read the edit summary on my self-revert? 23:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ack, ok. it is just a bit touchy on this whole outing/oversight thing. bit sensitive for me. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ani

Thanks for the ANI posting, but I'm hopeful admin assistance won't turn out to be necessary. Let's just wait and see, okay? NE Ent 00:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why were my edits on the shooting of Michael Brown reverted? Michael Brown was an African American teenager and yet the page incorrectly refers to him an his friend as men several times. Pangolin5 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pangolin5: This has been extensively discussed among editors of this article (see e.g. here and the consensus (which is how such things are decided here) is that at 18 years of age in Missouri, Brown was legally an adult (a man) and thus should be referred to that way. Do not repeat the edits. 18:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

AN/V weirdness

I originally was adding my comment to the bot-reported report. But it went to that /TB2 subpage instead. I don't understand that, but I didn't intend to go to the /TB2 page, whatever that is. ANyway, seems fine now. Jeh (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you have made at least 10 edits to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ISP editor removing reference needed templates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.102.30.143 is removing tags from articles seemingly without cause. It also appears that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.102.30.143&diff=711134988&oldid=706716366 may be engaged in sock puppetry. I'm not sure how to address this...your thoughts please. Pjefts (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pjefts: Sorry, I am not an admin. Report apparent vandalism or other chronic nonconstructive editing at WP:AIV and sockpuppetry at WP:SPI (if you can identify the sockpuppeteer). Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 18:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)