Jump to content

User talk:General Ization/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Autopatrolled

I have assigned you an autopatrolled flag. Please let me know if you have any issues with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for advancing the discussion about birth records. I would really appreciate any contribution you could make toward developing policy at WP:Identity verification, or you cross-posting any cases you see to the talk page there. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. If you have any recommendation for how to hand this common situation I would appreciate any thoughts you have for what we collectively should do. I recognize that these cases come to Wikipedia with incomplete information, some of which is not transparent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abusing rollback and PCR

Do you have any explanation of this blatant abuse of rollback to edit against consensus and misuse of PCR to WP:STONEWALL? Don't abuse these user-rights or they would be revoked. 39.42.60.142 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

See the Talk page of the article, and stop threatening other editors. You are abusing the system by removing sourced content without explanation in your edit summary, and engaged in a slow edit war. I also suspect you are an IPsock of a registered user, but that will just need to be my suspicion -- for now. General Ization Talk 05:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
And you will need to justify any claim that I have abused my tools. You are welcome to bring it up at WP:ANI. In the meantime, lay off the article and participate in the Talk page discussion. General Ization Talk 05:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I won't comment on your nonsense but you said "without explanation", you should better tell me if you are blind or trolling? I have explained every edit while you are just abusing double downing with your rollback abuse.[1] Stop it or I take it to ANI. 39.42.60.142 (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Take it to WP:ANI then. Perhaps you missed my encouragement that you do so above. In the meantime, you are now at WP:3RR at the article, so I suggest you stop. General Ization Talk 05:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
And you will now need to to explain yourself at WP:AN3. General Ization Talk 05:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, General Ization. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Rear or raised

Thank you for your contribution on the Tommy Burnett article. That article is important to me and I appreciate any efforts to improve it. However, I must disagree with you regarding the "reared" or "raised" issue. While as a former journalist I certainly appreciate the words of William Safire, I do not consider him the foremost authority on English grammar and writing style. His opinions are his own. Still, I am happy to allow your edit to remain without contention, although I do not consider the opinions of two people to be a "consensus." I'm not sure what number constitutes a consensus to me. I suppose it is as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart cited when considering obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." Again, thank you and all the best to you! MarydaleEd (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: I wasn't suggesting that you post on my Talk page. I was directing you to post on the article's Talk page in order to seek consensus if you wanted to pursue the issue. If you choose not to and to leave the phrase alone, that's OK with me also. While you may turn up your nose at William Safire, or even grammar.com, they do support the notion that use of the term "raised" rather than "reared" is now much more common in American English to describe a subject's upbringing, particularly when referring to the place where they matured versus the act of helping them do so. Many others agree, e.g. [2], [3], [4]. General Ization Talk 01:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@MarydaleEd: Also, you and I do not need to debate about the meaning of "consensus". Note that that word is highlighted in my comment above, as it was in my edit summary; that means it is a clickable link. Click on it, and review Wikipedia's policy concerning consensus. I wasn't saying two people's opinions are consensus, and in fact they are not. In this case, I was the second editor to revert your edit, so we start at your one opinion versus two opposed. General Ization Talk 01:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about citing

If the source we have learned something from is a first hand witness of an event, are they considered a reliable source, even though it is impossible to cite a person's verbal account of an event? 108.239.244.60 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No. See Verifiability. General Ization Talk 23:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Spotted dick

What exactly is your objection to my edits in this specific article? You didn't specify anything, but rather just linked an article on proper editing. Shintaraguru (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Shintaraguru: See MOS:LQ, which explains the logical quotation style ("punctuation inside or outside"). The edits of yours that I reverted directly deviated from this format (actually changed the article which correctly followed the format so that it no longer did). If you look, you will note my edit summary, and my comment on your Talk page, in reverting your edit: "MOS:LQ". General Ization Talk 22:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: I see. So, the period is placed after the end quotation symbol? I was always under the impression that's only true with non-sentence words or phrases.
@Shintaraguru: See the link for guidance as to the usage. Indeed, at Spotted dick, the quoted phrase, "very marly species of plum-pudding" is not a complete sentence, so punctuation would not be enclosed within the quotes. General Ization Talk 22:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: Thanks for the heads up on that. Also, thanks for indenting my last reply. I don't use this chat feature often and don't know how to utilize it properly. On that topic, how do I leave the date, time, and other info at the end of each reply? Do I have it to type it out myself or is there a way to have it done automatically when the publish button is hit? Mind you, I'm replying through my phone, so certain editing capabilities may not be present on the mobile version.
@Shintaraguru: See WP:TILDE. General Ization Talk 22:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: Thank you. I'll have a look through that.

Hamilton (musical)

As per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, productions that have not been premiered will not be listed in the infobox. However, relevant (and referenced) information can be added to the 'Productions' section regardless of the status of the musical, in order to keep the page up to date about past, current and planned future productions.

Also please see the 'Final Note' section of the page which explicitly says: "This Article Structure is put in place to assist in the addition of information to Wikipedia. This system was not intended to justify the removal of information." Thank you. Tom1819 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Evelyn Boucher

Don't threaten me. I was in the process of adding the sources when you deleted! Jack1956 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add the sources when you add the content. Citations of reliable sources are not optional, and I can not read your mind. If you need to develop the article in a sandbox, so as not to have this problem, please do so. General Ization Talk 21:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was still working on them when you started deleting. Let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding. We are both here for the same reason, to make Wiki better. Jack1956 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Amishai GG

What is the reason for rolling back all of my edits? I have constructively edited many pages. I'd appreciate reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishai GG (talk • contribs) 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I do not understand how deleting a word can constitute vandalism, if it is not even mentioned in the supporting cited material. I would think that it is Wikipedia's policy to ONLY write ACCURATE information from a source AS IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THEREIN. Far too often Wikipedia editors include a whole lot of biased and prejudicial words/statements that are only meant to embellish their subjective opinions, in stead of objectively contributing to the truth of the overall content. That is the only reason I made that correction. Anyway kindly elucidate how my correction amounted to vandalism; maybe it is I who is missing something here. Thank you.

174.105.152.171 (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Refer, please, to my edit summary: "The candidate claimed a friend of Trump’s had said “Donald Trump reads [the Epoch Times] every day and it’s the one newspaper that he believes to be a truthful and correct paper. … It’s the only one he trusts.” That's a third-hand claim. [Reverted]. It was not "embellishing" to say that the claim was reported third-hand, and that is what the cited source stated. My restoring the word "thirdhand" [sic] by reverting your removal restored the accuracy of the sentence. If you want to know why your edits are reverted, start by reading the edit summary accompanying the reversion. General Ization Talk 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Editing on Actors

You have said I violated the neutral act policy which states Wikipedia may not take sides however all I added was the word theory I literally made it less political and opinionated by stating it was a theory and not factual so I don't get why you are against me and not the person who wrote that pretty much left winged biased section on female actresses. Thank you TheHunter100 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheHunter100:
The paragraph that you initially removed and are now labeling as a "biased opinion" and a "theory" accurately describes the results of a study by Forbes magazine, a reliable source. Thus it is not biased, a theory, or an opinion. We do not get to remove or label as "theory" facts that we as editors happen to dislike. See WP:NPOV. General Ization Talk 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are misinformed

This issue has already been settled on Talk:Bob Marley#Ancestry additions Somville243 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somville243 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Somville243: Yes, I reviewed that discussion. "Norval Marley was a white Jamaican originally from Sussex, England, whose family claimed Syrian Jewish origins. This sentence should suffice, and if there is no verifiable evidence they claimed to be Syrian Jews, that part can be removed also. No need for anything further.--Chimino (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)" I simply restored the content that it was proposed was sufficient (which implies that it should stay). If you removed the content for a reason, you should add to that discussion and explain why. General Ization Talk 03:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No you're not reading carefully enough. The information regarding Syrian Ancestry does not come from reliable sources, and was decided by all parties to be removed.Somville243 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

John Vernou Bouvier III

In this edit you removed a refimprove section template I had placed on the article earlier today. I thought you might like to know the reasons I placed it there: there has been a simmering edit war where various IPs (from Ireland I think) change statements regarding where Bouvier was born, the town and country his great grandfather was from, plus how his great-grandfather, grandfather and father made the family fortune. I realized that, regardless of how longstanding the information was within the article, none of the statements are supported by cites, so the first half of the entire section is unreferenced. That is why I placed the refimprove template on that section. Would appreciate knowing why you removed it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Please review the article's history. It should be clear (by studying that, if not from my edit summary, which stated so) that I reverted to the version prior to all of IP 68.133.8.171's unsourced edits, and specifically prior to the claim that Michel Bouvier emigrated from France rather than Canada, which still appeared in the version on which you placed your template. You can replace the template on the current version if you wish. General Ization Talk 13:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
My point is just that I don't know what is true in those first two paragraphs - it's all unsourced. Maybe he emigrated from France, maybe it was Canada...there's no verification of the great grandfather's origins. Thanks for your explanation, I do think the template is needed. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.

March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.

May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Random Edits

Hey General Ization,

I see that you messaged me about an edit to an article being removed / reverted, this confused me as I don't even know how that's possible. I did some digging and it turns out I have random wikipedia edits coming from my IP. I have never edited a wikipedia article in my life and most of the stuff written is on random articles I've never visited. There was some thing my IP wrote on a Self Defense article saying some stuff about "warrior mindset"??? No clue how that edit came from my account as this is not a shared IP. Is there any way I can have these removed or suppressed or whatever it's called? 47.227.192.145 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

100.33.235.183; username

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting that random and unconstructive edit by Special:Contributions/100.33.235.183 on Pesticide. I've just reverted another one that they made immediately after you reverted the first one. I'd normally just use the "thank" feature for something like this, but I also wanted to add that your username gave me a good chuckle. 🙂 --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent remarks

"Apparently, you are quite easily astonished. Try reading Shakespeare. General Ization Talk 04:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)"

Do you consider this appropriate? 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do. General Ization Talk 06:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I don't. Please refrain from suggesting reading material based on your assumptions about me in the future. Thanks, 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd ask you to please try to develop a sense of humor, and a somewhat thicker skin. You'll need it if you're to be a successful editor here. You might think about what I was trying to tell you, rather than taking it as evidence of an assumption about you (which it was not). General Ization Talk 06:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@5Ept5xW: Put another way: If any reader is "astonished" to read that Kennedy used a gender-specific pronoun in presenting his challenge to Congress, well and good; that is precisely what he did, and that is precisely what he meant to do, and if that is astonishing, so be it. We should not protect our readers from being astonished by facts, or by the language actually used by our subjects in the context of their times (hence the reference to Shakespeare). The POLA does not say we should. (And as I said earlier, the POLA is actually not relevant to this issue at all. You're welcome to try to explain how you think it is, if you care to.) General Ization Talk 07:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
POLA: if a gentler way to present information exists, use it. 5Ept5xW (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing "ungentle" about presenting information accurately. If you need your information pre-digested in order to find it palatable, you will likely find yourself eating excrement. General Ization Talk 21:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

ahhhh

wasn't that sweet. somebody likes me  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

Just want to give you a heads up of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "army" and "navy" since your edit was mentioned at it. Garuda28 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops!

Oops!
Thanks for your message. I was not aware that I had inadvertently edited another user's post - I can only conclude that it was two overlapping updates (and the timestamps would appear to support this). Obviously I need to be more careful in future. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

:)

) General Inflation (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blackbear

I have cited reliable sources. He was born in Pittston, Pennsylvania. It's other people who keep changing it without providing sources. I just keep having to change it back. Musto himself wrote that he was born in PA. There are no additional sources I need to provide, people just need to actually read the sources that are already there.

Alexmarie (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see the Talk Page on Andrew Kaczynski

Talk:Andrew Kaczynski

thank you - AH (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page

Thanks for the reverting that IP editor on my talk page. Much appreciated, Railfan23 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Should I remove the section "Creating a consensus adding new section" and "Creating a consensus using gender neutral language on past NASA missions" or just reword them? OkayKenji (talk page) 06:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: It's OK; just leave it there. However, I think it's already clear that there is no consensus for the imposition of GNL on Kennedy's statements concerning the program to place "a man on the moon". In the absence of consensus, trying to force a vote on the question seems misguided. Also, we do not call this a vote, as WP:NOTVOTE explains. General Ization Talk 06:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I briefly read though that article. Sorry for causing trouble. Just don't want anybody getting banned... (at least other editors, if I get banned that "OK") Thanks OkayKenji (talk page) 06:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
A cup of coffee
I'm going to leave it as it is, thank you for the guidance on that policy. (didn't know it existed before). Obviously looking though my past edits I'm not that much of a WP:CIR editor (especially the last two points). I just thought by adding that I would help, but reading the policy, it makes so much sense. Looking though this talk page's history like here, editors don't seem to be that nice to you. I guess people forget that over the internet what they say is actually hurts. Obviously we should expect that, and try not to be too hurt by it. I really don't know where I'm going with this comment...I guess its just a way to say "Thank You". I know that editors main intent is to improve Wikipedia, but a "thanks" once in a while goes a long way right?
In all honestly. I was thinking why did I start the vote? And my honest answer would be that it might have been to "get credit" for helping. And that's just not right. It should have been to make Wikipedia better and possibly solve a dispute. And obviously it did not work out so far (hopefully it does). I mean in actuality I have been thinking about this for a while: "Why am I contributing to Wikipedia?", and honestly, my honest answer would be "for recognition/thank". I KNOW, that's wrong, and I'm trying to change that. Other editors mentioned that my edits are in "good-faith", but really, I'm starting to doubt that. CIR does say " Many editors have focused so much on this tenet that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor...Competence is required". Thanks for reading this if you do. I saw that you like coffee looking at your user page, so here's some coffee (to the right). Anyways I will try to improve. Apologies if this seems dramatic and jumps around a lot, that's really not my intent. And again, apologies for causing trouble. OkayKenji (talk page) 08:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@OkayKenji: Thanks for the coffee! Don't sweat it. You were trying to do the right thing. General Ization Talk 03:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wadelison

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced content to BLPs, as requested. However, can I advise using WP:ANI next time, as WP:AIV is designed specifically for urgent blocks of obvious bad-faith editors; this looks more like WP:COMPETENCE / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Noted, though given the rapid rate at which this editor was adding unsourced content, I speculate that they were using some automation to make their edits, making the need for intervention more urgent to limit the unsourced content that needed to be reverted. General Ization Talk 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the principal difference is that activity at AIV doesn't get documented easily, because vandals typically get bored and do something else so there's usually little point. Whereas rapid-fire disruptive (but possibly good faith) editors are more likely to come back after their block and carry on regardless, so the paper trail that ANI generates is useful there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Averages

Hello, General Ization. You have new messages at Talk:Madagascar (franchise)#Averages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I expanded on my edit summary on the article talk page. -- 109.76.207.106 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Today (American TV program)

Hi~ Nice to meet you ~ I have to restore back to here ~ just to let you know ~ give me a sec and I'll restore your edit ~mitch~ (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kckclizp

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I removed one of your warnings for user Kckclizp, as I had already warned about the vandalism on Tfue. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Help needed in Elizabeth Taylor's article (rollback?)

Hi,

In January 2019, User:Sirlanz decided for some reason to change the referencing system used in Elizabeth Taylor, or at least in the sections on her early life and acting career. The result is that the text is now interspersed with long lists of page numbers (making it visually 'cluttered') and the rest of the article follows a different ref style. Unfortunately I've not been active in the article for a long while, so did not notice this until now. Is there any chance that the changes Sirlanz made to the refs could be rollbacked? It would be very time-consuming to do it ref-by-ref. Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@TrueHeartSusie3: There is nothing wrong with the changes that Sirlanz made to Elizabeth Taylor; in fact, they are an improvement, even if you don't understand why. They are most certainly not vandalism, which means it would be an abuse of tools for me to use rollback to revert those changes. General Ization Talk 11:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not implying that they are vandalism, and I'm sorry but there's no need to be snarky. I was under the impression that they are outdated and frankly, I am of the opinion that they make the text cluttered as on many occasions, several different page number ranges are referenced in one footnote. Could you please direct me to a source where I could learn more about why it is that this type of referencing is seen as an improvement these days? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
That would seem to imply that the cited content is discussed in several ranges of pages within the specified source. As a general rule, page citing is preferred when a book of hundreds of pages is being cited, as here, versus a Web page or other relatively short source where the reader does not need to know specifically where to look to find the reference. The benefits to the reader greatly outweigh the "cluttering" of the text. Please see WP:BURDEN, WP:PAGENUM and WP:CITEPAGE. General Ization Talk 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we're talking about different things here? I certainly agree that the page numbers are essential (I mean it's me who did the research for the article and wrote the references in the first place), just that I don't understand the benefit from having them visible in the main bulk of the text, thus making it longer and more visually cluttered, vs. only appearing when one hovers over the footnote with the cursor (i.e. they are 'hidden' in the footnote). I'm certainly not disputing the need to properly reference.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Please see WP:CITEPAGE as I suggested above. When the same source is cited multiple (dozens of) times with the only variation being a specific page or page range, the citation method now being used permits the consolidation of citations using named refs versus multiple citations in full of the same source. This also reduces the length of the reflist, which is already exceptionally long for this article. The citation format may well vary between sections of an article, as content dealing with different aspects of the subject may cite different kinds of sources. We are far less concerned about "visual clutter" here than about we are about dozens of rows in the reflist referring to the same source. General Ization Talk 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
My primary motivation is to render a reflist that better reflects the depth of sourcing. By consolidating references, one can more readily appreciate the true breadth of source material supporting the article; one also has a more immediate snapshot of concentration (possible over-reliance) on particular sources. Having a shorter list is an ancillary positive, I venture to suggest. I agree that there is an increase in visual clutter but imagine it is not such as to disturb or distract most readers. sirlanz 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Moon Jae-in

Hey General ~ nice to meet you. I was wondering about that ~ in the sources I looked up to see if it was reliable or not ~ all I got was 19th term ~ I was not sure enough ~ because it kinda made sense that if you count how many (which I did not do {I just guessed}) different people held that office... (the word 'term' thru me off) ~ I told myself that hopefully another editor (like you) would correct it. Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Rabbitfish update

Hello,

You have rejected my update due to the lack of reference, however I have photos of this as evidence. Do I need to also upload photos as proof?

This behaviour is NOT reported or observed elsewhere and there IS NO REFERENCE to this species eating jellyfish either online (that I can find) or in any printed book which I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.237.70 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is no published, reliable source for the information you are attempting to add to the article, it may not be added to the encyclopedia. Your personal experiences, with or without photographs, are not verifiable and therefore are not a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization Talk 04:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Fan232Gamer

Hello, General. I am very sorry about my errors and mistakes yesterday and today. I am very new here and I am trying to get used to the new typing system used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fans232Gamer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Cornhole

Look at Soccer, American Football, and Baseball. All three of those articles reference the governing bodies for their sports in the professional realm. This is exactly the same thing for the American Cornhole League in reference to Cornhole. Tryder707 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707

@Tryder707: You are a paid connected contributor as you declared with this edit. If you continue to edit any article where you have a clear conflict of interest, you are likely to be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not being paid to edit this page. This is information that people need to know if they want to be educated on the sport.Tryder707 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707

You are paid to publicize the American Cornhole Leaugue; it does not matter whether your job description specifically calls for you to edit Wikipedia. You have an obvious conflict of interest and are being paid to represent an organization related to an article you are editing. See WP:PAID and WP:COI. I suggest you stop. The next stop will be the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. General Ization Talk 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but then any mention of the MLS should be removed from the soccer page please. Or do I just have to rely on a random person to add the ACL to this page? Tryder707 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707

@Tryder707: There is no evidence that the information concerning the MLS was contributed to the article Soccer by someone who has a conflict of interest or was paid to do so. Any information concerning the ACL must be added to the Cornhole article by someone who does not have a conflict of interest and is not being paid to publicize it, and must include sources that are independent of the ACL (not the organization's Web site). There are procedures you can follow to suggest this edit, rather than make it; these are discussed at the policy pages I have shared with you. General Ization Talk 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Tryder707 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707

Please be more careful

I restored the page to how it was a few days ago BEFORE disruption. I also used an edit summary.You restored the disruption. Please take the time to review more carefully.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sunbeam box format

Present format in Sunbeam (passenger train) for the box does not conform with established formatting patterns.

I made change to allow for amenities. This was not vandalism.Dogru144 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You clearly misread the page history. I reverted the IP that reverted you. General Ization Talk 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Ization/Archive_19&oldid=998893759"