User talk:General Ization: Difference between revisions

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:

WP:N (General Notability) WP:BIO (Person Notability) WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability) WP:WEB (Web Content Notability) WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons policies)

WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability) WP:V (Verifiability) WP:RS (Reliable Sources) WP:COPY (Copyright)

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.

This is General Ization's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

General Ization is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. Most likely, however, General Ization will not be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway.

How come Duel is considered excessive detail but Trimpers isn't. --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do you a favour by trimming excess detail but that got reverted, but if you add detail in Duel. That's a bad thing. Explain? --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained at User talk:MarnetteD. If you spent half as much time actually paying attention to what others tell you as you have invested in disruptive editing, you'd know what other editors have been trying to tell you. Since you are apparently unable or disinclined to do that, it's time for a timeout. General Ization ^Talk 13:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duel_-_The_Haunted_House_Strikes_Back! Where on the talk page has there been a consensus justifying the large page blanking on the ride experience section? --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go, go and ask Woomballio if he did or didn't start off with the highly detailed Duel (ride) edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woombamillio --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He even deleted this section "I have started some very in-depth writing on the ride experience for both the Haunted House and Duel, basically using my extensive knowledge of the ride. If anybody has any more information to add then go ahead, it would be nice to cover everything. My sources come from the website Haunted One, which is a very reliable site that holds lots of archive information and research. However, it does get rather opinionated every now and then, which I have stayed clear of. I have not simply copied its information either. I am aiming to match Disneyland's Haunted Mansion Wikipedia page, although not as much detail since the ride is not as well known or historical. It should be a significant improvment on the two or three sentences that were on this page before. Woombamillio (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)" --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not coherent enough. --2.125.87.21 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vandalizing? Put information with source makes me a vandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.207.67 (talk)

No, evading your previous blocks does. General Ization ^Talk 00:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okay, I Will Stop Changing The Edits, JUST FOR YOU, AS You Have Mentioned It Doe's Not Matter One Way Or Another Whether, The Nation Or Nationality Of Ones Birth (So Im Puzzled Why You Would Change My Edits), There Are Numerous Articles, If Not Most NOW, That Do Not Link This, But I Will STOP Linking The Page/s, Just For You, As I See This It Is JUST A Major Power Trip For You My Friend.

There has been vandalism in her page. Every time ​ I search Mikasa Ackerman false information pops up and I would try to fix it myself but I don't know how. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdsdfgiofr (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information that was changed or introduced was incorrect.

"The victims were later collectively known as "The Charleston Nine"." I changed that to reflect the correct name, "The Emanuel Nine". "The Charleston Nine" are the firefighters that lost their lives 10 years ago. BLS12 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BLS12: And you removed the existing citation that described the shooting victims as the "Charleston Nine", providing no new citation for "Emanuel Nine"; and failed to cite your claim that the firefighters were referred to by that name. Please see WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 19:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BLS12: The fact is that the shooting victims were referred to at various times in various publications by both names. I have restored the original name and citation along with the ones you added. Please do not restore the claim concerning the firefighters without citing a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. I'm so stupid. I can be thankful for that tipp!!! PantherLoop (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my page. PantherLoop (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PantherLoop: I cannot delete your Talk page. I can blank it, but so can you. Just edit it and delete all the content. Someone will come along and delete the page. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, add this text to your Talk page to request it be deleted: {{db-user}} General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you very likely can't have your talk page deleted. You can blank your user page and/or have it deleted, and you can blank your talk page, but you cannot have it deleted. Linguist¹1¹ 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objective was to post explanation for placing a {uw-3rr} there - do I need to formally complain? Roy Bateman (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Bateman: I understood your objective in posting on the editor's page in the first place. My message to you was about the reversion to restore your comments after he removed them. If you think that another editor is edit warring, and find you are unable to resolve the issue without help, report it at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this - I hope correctly. Roy Bateman (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Im doing. I do have reliable sources. They are www.silverdollarcity.com and I have been going to White Water longer than anybody else. I know every rule and everything there is to know about White Water. I know what Im doing. Laroyl (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laroyl: What you are doing is violating Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability by providing no citations of reliable sources to support the edits you are making to the article. Your personal knowledge or experience is not relevant here, as it is not verifiable; see original research. If you continue to add content to the article without citing reliable sources, you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laroyl: In addition, much of the content you are adding is completely unnecessary in an encyclopedic article. There is no need, for example, to include the park rules in the article here; they are only of interest to those who attend the park, and one would assume they are readily available on the park's Web site and posted at the park. General Ization ^Talk 23:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add stuff to the page that people want to know and look for, sometimes when planning a vacation. You are just trying to make the page worse. My knowledge can be proven by asking any manager. If I cant put my knowledge here, than where can I put it? It needs to go somewhere. Also, a few things on that page are very wrong and are the wrong slide. Look at the website or recent pictures. Laroyl (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laroyl: Wikipedia is not a travel guide or vacation planning service. You can correct or add relevant information to the article, but only if you cite reliable sources for the corrected or added information. If you are unable or unwilling to take the time to do that, then please do not edit here. You can post it on Facebook or some other site that is not an encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laroyl: Also, please see WP:BURDEN, which makes it very clear that is your responsibility to provide citations of reliable sources to support your added or changed content; it is not my or anyone else's responsibility to go looking for it. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your action. You accuse me of vandalism by changing the ranking from sixteenth to 24th, but I notice that the page is intact. In fact my change/correction is correct per Wikipedia's own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.36.61.45 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my subsequent self-revert? (Apparently not.) General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, however, that one cannot assume that a change is correct because some other Wikipedia page says it is (or because some page that is dependent on Wikipedia for content says it is). It's entirely possible for an error or vandalism to be propagated to multiple Wikipedia pages at the same time (or over time). Had I not been able to verify the correct ranking using an external source, I would not have reverted my change (nor removed the warning from your Talk page). General Ization ^Talk 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a sentence scarin' off vandalisms and you say I'm vandalizing? How? --A the wikier (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A the wikier: You have no business editing any other Wikipedia user's user page, much less Jimbo Wales' user page. Continue and be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 23:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that "You can really edit this page" is a bait? (Obviously I wouldn't edit someone else's userpage but still it said so?) Alright I admit and I won't do it again. --A the wikier (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it have an edit button on it for users other than who's page it is? The snare (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to your edits. Her verified twitter is not considered a source for her announcing her engagement. And XBIZ, whose awards are listed in her bio, is not a credible source for her real name? NewComVIc (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You will notice that I twice provided a source in the edit summary. If you want to dispute you should use the talkpage. Amisom (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amisom: See your Talk page. You will be able to note, I assume, that I only reverted your edit twice, and that both times the content was unsourced. WP:BURDEN doesn't contemplate that an edit summary is the proper place to cite your source. If you would really like to take this up at WP:AN3, be my guest, but beware the boomerang. General Ization ^Talk 17:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS agent (verify): Hi Ization!

It seems as you were made a mistake when reverting a blanking of an AfD. We do actually blank AfDs in the event someone requests it. See {{Xfd-privacy}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For clarity's sake, I assume the discussion is actually hidden, not removed per se, similar to revdel. Correct? General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is hidden from direct view (i.e. not visable when reading the AfD, or when a search engine scrapes the page), but not from public view (i.e. not accessible in the history) as a revdel would do. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 19:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sorry, I didn't know "sceptical" was spelled that way in South African English; I thought it was just a spelling error. My bad! 24.17.216.223 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is a good resource for British English, etc. (i.e., not American English) spellings. See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sceptical . General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cant you stop editing out the much infomation need for these pages. the holocaust denial and the other had infomation thats not there. so when i put why not go see if if true then delete it. but there are sources. but i want you to add this becuase its missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.118.210 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not add the claim to any page without citing one or more reliable sources that support it. So far, you have not done so. It is your responsibility, not mine, to provide citations of reliable sources for the content you propose to add. See WP:BURDEN and the information I posted on your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 03:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan and Eritrea have not cut diplomatic ties with Qatar which was my primary edit. I'll be sure to leave a comment in the edit summary. The other information I removed (not part of the article) I felt was no longer necessary since it no longer appears that anyone is trying to add Mauritius anymore. No intention of making non-constructive edits. 156.194.136.13 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]