User talk:General Ization

PLEASE READ

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.

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/enwiki/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)

Country name in birthplaces

The information I'm contributing is completely correct. Do you dislike facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayton Forrester (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Clayton Forrester: See WP:PLACE. "New York, New York" requires no disambiguation as to country, as there is no other. General Ization ^Talk 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Which of the two?

User:General Ization, as a linguistic expert, which of these two origins is most realistic for the surname Maior, this [1], or this [2]. Thanks --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: I'm not a linguistics expert (and I'm curious why you thought I was) or an expert on the etymology of surnames, but the explanation at the second link seems to me more likely to account for most occurrences of the surname Maior (and the text at that link is somewhat better sourced). However, it's entirely possible that there are people named Maior whose surnames are derived from both (there are many examples of names of different derivations that share a common modern spelling). By the way, I would not think of www.houseofnames.com as a reliable source for encyclopedic information about the derivation of surnames (though some of the sources cited in the articles there might be reliable). General Ization ^Talk 03:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: I confused being a linguistic expert with another user, but thanks for looking at the website and giving me your answer, I appreciate. Houseofnames.com isn't the only website that uses these 2 origins for these names, but when looking at my own name (Goram), the website gives this origin ([3]) related to Goring, instead of being related to this name ([4]), Gorham. Is this right? Thanks --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: I have no clue. General Ization ^Talk 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Shrimp vis-à-vis prawn

The meaning is clear and precise.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vis-%C3%A0-vis

kencf0618 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Pseudonyms Should Be Abolished

It is very easy to hide behind pseudonyms. You are really "generalizing". Who are you and why are you doing this? Laszlo Csatary was my father. I have rights in this case. You do not! No one has the right to slander another or protect slander. That is oppression. Is that clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 21:08, April 3, 2016‎

This is being discussed on the article's Talk page, where your comments and/or complaints regarding this article belong. If you continue to use the word "slander", your comments will be regarded as a legal threat and you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Make that "blocked again" for legal threats. Meters (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability of personal secretaries to Presidents of the United States

To answer your question here, yes, there are at least 13 personal (administrative) secretaries to Presidents of the United States in the modern era who have Wikipedia articles. They are listed here. The four five without Wikipedia articles probably would qualify for articles, by virtue of that role alone, if someone bothered to do the research and write them (e.g., Rose Conway). To me, the fact that you didn't look into this before making your argument speaks volumes. General Ization ^Talk 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: How exactly does that "speak volumes"? I did not know the answer to the question. You seemed more knowledgeable about the subject. So I asked you the question. Assuming that you would know the answer. So, how exactly does that "speak volumes"? And about what exactly does it speak volumes? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

You can't possibly be so dense as to not understand my comment above and its meaning. So I will assume (in a variation on AGF) that you are not that dense and instead that you are intentionally trolling me, something I really don't have time to indulge. General Ization ^Talk 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Not sure how that answered my valid question. In fact, seems to avoid it altogether. So I will repeat it one last time. I also don't have time for your games. Question: How exactly does that "speak volumes"? I did not know the answer to the question. You seemed more knowledgeable about the subject. So I asked you the question. Assuming that you would know the answer. So, how exactly does that "speak volumes"? And about what exactly does it speak volumes? Please advise. Thanks. Answer that question. Or leave me alone. Thanks. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It means that you wasted my time and the time of every other editor engaged in the conversation at Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese by making this completely spurious argument about how Rose Mary Woods is entitled to an article because of her association with the Watergate scandal, and therefore Walter Moseley should be entitled to an article because of his association with the murder of Genovese, when (as I pointed out here) Woods already met the requirements for notability as the personal secretary to a US President. And that even after I explained that, you couldn't be bothered to actually look to see if secretaries to Presidents are notable here, instead asking a question that you were entirely capable of answering for yourself. So, I conclude that at least one of these several things are true, and possibly more than one: you are an exceptionally poor researcher, you are exceptionally lazy and content to let others do your research for you, and/or you are completely oblivious to the degree to which you waste other editors' time. Now before you accuse me of incivility, allow me to point out that I was quite happy to leave it at my relatively diplomatic comment above, knowing that in order to go any further I would need to insult you, but you insisted on my giving you the completely unvarnished, un-diplomatically-phrased truth as I see it. There it is; make of it whatever you wish. General Ization ^Talk 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You are 100% right. I am 100% wrong. Not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for your keen insight! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I did my changes but it reverts

Hi,

We as a team management of Taher Shah did some minor changes on their personal profile named with

Eye to Eye ( Taher Shah Song )

Taher Shah

Both profiles belongs to our singer celebrity MR Taher Shah who's recent song Angel has been viral any got famed around the globe. Last night our IT Manager also send you a detail email regarding our changes and its reverting

We did a minor change in both of our celebrity profiles that mentions totally wrong on his profile. The changes are listed below

Label: Blue Note Productions ( mentions in Eye to Eye ( Taher Shah Song ) profile on right hand details )

Blue Note Productions clearly mentions in first line of ( Taher Shah profile )

Who's this company we don't know its not relate to us or our celebrity, its a fake company published by your side we condemn to change it to EYE TO EYE limited company who belongs to us and produced both of these songs. EYE TO EYE LTD is a government registered company we can show you its registration and also its universal ID as well for your confirmation but we didn't know about this BLUE NOTE PRODUCTIONS and its any person, somebody wants to attach their name with our celebrity.

Our company website:

Www.eyetoeye.com.pk

Our celebrity website:

Www.tahershah.com

Kindly change this BLUE NOTES PRODUCTIONS to EYE TO EYE LTD or simply remove this its fake information updated on our singer celebrity profiles people are commenting and asking for us regarding this. I hope you understand this matter that's why we change this again n again from this profile, you can review the changes done from our side

If you need any further information so kindly let us know we are glad to provide all required information,

Looking forward for your response

Regards, Management's team Taher Shah

Taher Shah (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Taher Shah: See the Talk page of the article Taher Shah. You actually have no business editing the article (or Eye to Eye (Taher Shah song)), because you have a conflict of interest: see WP:COI. But if you (or other editors) continue edit warring over the name of the production company without providing a published, reliable source for the name, I will see that you are blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Taher Shah's Production House

Hey there! I just want to clarify that Taher Shah's all songs and videos are produced by Blue Notes Productions. It is a very inside fact because this production house never claimed in public that it produces Taher Shah's songs and videos. I am stating this with such confidence because I am also affiliated with this production house and also assisted his owner Farrukh Sheikh on many projects. Please put its name on this page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.150.17 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See the reply to user Taher Shah directly above your comment. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, we do not publish "very inside facts" on Wikipedia; all content here must be verifiable using published, reliable sources. See WP:V. If there is no public documentation that Blue Notes Productions produced Shah or his work, that "fact" will not appear here. Your affiliation with this or any other company means absolutely nothing here (other than that you may also have a conflict of interest, as I mentioned to the other account above). General Ization ^Talk 01:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit of "Zealand"

Hello General Ization,

You recently reverted my edit which is fair. However, I would ask for your help. "Zealand" as you call it in English is not correct in Danish it is called Sjaelland and is pronounced "Sheh-lan". I am guessing the confusion came about because the Dutch and Danish are always getting mixed up by outsiders, and so assume that Sjaelland is like the region in the Netherlands Zeeland. In danish we seldom use "z's" so why people think Sjaelland is Zealand i don't know? also the talk on the spelling of the Dutch Zeeland backs me up a bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AZeeland.

so i ask for your help to correct this error in history. if not then i'll try to find better sources to back me up. Either way thank you for a good discussion

-Margoth195 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margoth195 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Margoth195: See [5], [6], [7], [8], and any number of other sites found with a search for zealand -"New Zealand". You will see that the term Zealand is commonly used in English to refer to the island the Danes call Sjaelland. As I have already explained, this is the English Wikipedia, so we use the English name. At the Danish Wikipedia, it is called Sjælland, as appropriate in that encyclopedia's language. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Andy Dingley" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)