Jump to content

User talk:General Ization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.135.20.20 (talk) at 16:35, 6 May 2017 (→Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna ‎). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


PLEASE READ

Stop icon
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:

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.

Andy Murray

Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Hello. This edit was not made in mistake. If the article is going to be written in such a style whereby Murray is referred to as British, then I suggest articles such as Fred Perry, David Beckham and David Bowie are also changed to such a style. Having each individual described as the country the come from within the UK is more accurate, I believe. 2A02:C7D:4EEA:2A00:C11C:EB63:C704:BDE8 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's Talk page for the consensus established earlier this year on this question. Your edit was at odds with that consensus; if you want to start a new discussion on the article's Talk page, please do, but do not change this against consensus unless and until a new consensus is established. General Ization Talk 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's MoS

Thanks for the comment pointing me to MoS:LQ. I did not know that. I dislike that style intensely personally, but now that I know I'll watch out for it on Wikipedia and do my best to stick by it. 207.30.77.162 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. General Ization Talk 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my change to Pan Am flight 841

Okay, I'm the daughter of Eugene Vaughn, the captain that is cited in Pan Am flight 841. I should know better than ANYONE who in our family became airline pilots. Whoever wrote this said that both of his sons are airline pilots...INCORRECT! He does have 2 sons but only ONE of the sons became an airline pilot. I am his daughter and I became an airline pilot as well. So it's a son and daughter, not two sons!!!! It's insulting to me to not be properly noted in this article. What the heck do I need to do to get this changed to reflect the correct information!!!! HELP! The reference that reflected the wrong information was based on an article I submitted to a Pan Am documentary. That article was also apparently edited and even spelled my last name incorrectly so the reference has issues. Bottom line, he has a son and a daughter that became airline pilots....NOT two sons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by F9busflyer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@F9busflyer: Assuming for the moment that you are Janet Elliott, this is the cited source on which that statement in the article is based, is on the Web site of the producer (Jeffrey Mills) of the Pan Am documentary you mentioned, and is attributed to Janet/you. We rely on reliable, published sources, not on the recollections or unsupported claims of anyone who decides to come along, claiming to be a family member or otherwise. We cannot change the article to disagree with our cited source just because you say we should, or because you claim that the cited source misquoted you, a claim we cannot possibly verify. See Reliable sources and Verifiability. If you can provide another reliable, published source that confirms your claim, or Mr. Mills updates/corrects the information on his site which is currently cited in the article, then (and only then) can we change it. General Ization Talk 01:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's ironic is that the reference used that showed the error was originally written by me and then edited after the fact with incorrect information. I sent a message to that web page to get the corrections made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F9busflyer (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop me a note if/when you hear back from Mr. Mills that the site will be updated. General Ization Talk 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for denying someone's request for defamatory content. Yoshimi82 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning at Talk:Informant16

Hi General Ization, I just wanted to let you know the background on Informant16's removal of material at Bernie Sanders. Ironically, it was material that he contributed. When he started to add to it, two editors (I was one) suggested waiting to accumulate enough material to summarize, rather than accrete new bulletins in the topic matter. Unfortunately, the editor took offense and removed the material, which has been restored twice, now. This is all visible at Talk:Bernie Sanders. It's hard to judge the balance between encouragement and advice in a case like this. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I read your comments at Talk:Bernie Sanders earlier today. General Ization Talk 13:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report

I honestly think you should withdraw this, per the explanation I gave there. I have quite a bit of experience with Jan. and PF's comments just don't have anything like the same feel.

btw, I hope you don't mind that I "borrowed" the big red notice from your talk page, for my talk page editnotice! Jeh (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome! General Ization Talk 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on List of conspiracy theories

The article mentions lots of conspiracy theories about democrats, but refuses to call anything semi-recent against republicans a conspiracy theory, even when it meets the same criteria as other things which are included. That is not WP:NPOV. ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ConservativeTrumpism: Bring it up on the article's Talk page. A "theory" that is currently under federal investigation is, at this point, more than just a theory and does not belong on a List of conspiracy theories. General Ization Talk 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: (No, this edit adds a "See also" wikilink for a conspiracy theory which has been neither proven or disproven, much like the others featured here. I'll also be writing a section in the article for it when I get a chance. It's no less neutral than the rest)

@ConservativeTrumpism: No, sorry. "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. In January 2017, a U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed 'high confidence' that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an 'influence campaign' to harm Clinton's electoral chances. Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015." An article with that lead does not describe something that can be termed a "conspiracy theory", and including it among the See also items is an obvious implication that it can and should. General Ization Talk 21:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, any theories that accuse Democrats of some conspiracy, and are neither proven nor disproven, are labeled "conspiracy theories", but when it's the other party you think it's a NPOV violation??????? ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above. General Ization Talk 21:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the more recent conclusion of the intelligence community is that Donald Trump was not collaborating with Russia to release the information, nor was he communicating with anyone who he was aware was a Russian agent. Stop trying to make it look like Trump engineered this thing. Discussion is ongoing on talk page for the page I tried to link. ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ConservativeTrumpism: Your edit has been challenged. You need to bring up the change you propose to make to List of conspiracy theories at Talk:List of conspiracy theories for discussion. The discussion at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections addresses the changes you propose to that article, not the edits I have challenged. General Ization Talk 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I made an edit to List of conspiracy theories in good faith. You reverted and challenged it. I reverted your reverting of the edit. I reverted you, and you reverted me again. One more round and then we will have each used three reverts. After that, my changes will stand until you either find another person to support your ridiculous point of view or you revert it again in violation of WP:3RR and get reported to WP:AIN. ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ConservativeTrumpism: Please note that, as WP:EW makes clear, three reverts are not necessary to support a complaint of edit warring. Your comments above indicate an intent to "game" the system, which is also a factor in addressing these complaints. Your most recent revert has now been reverted by another editor, indicating that you must seek consensus for the change you are attempting to make. If you fail to make any effort to seek that consensus, and make the change again, you will promptly find yourself answering a report at WP:AN3. General Ization Talk 02:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A warning for what?

I added the content I removed and chose to take it down once it was claimed that it was too much on a particular subject on the Bernie Sanders article. You accuse me of edit warring because two people decided that the one sentence I added that was removed was too much thanks to what was already there on the subject, leading me to remove all of what I'd written regarding it, and then they break their own logic by reposting it repeatedly after saying that it was too much and making the page a source of news bulletins. - Informant16 April 19, 2017

@Informant16: Please continue the conversation on the article's Talk page. You were engaging [1][2][3] in an edit war (which see defined at that link); you appear now to have stopped the war, and are now engaged in a discussion, which is the appropriate way to handle the issue. Case closed. General Ization Talk 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So because you refuse to explain why you decided to put in place text that was agreed upon, during "a discussion", as giving too much coverage but disagreed in how to be handled, then you redirect me to talk to someone else? - Informant16 April 19, 2017
@Informant16: I note that you received similar warnings in March, June and July of last year, so you really should take the time to read the policy and follow it. Note in particular the advice that "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." General Ization Talk 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Informant16: And yes, the editors at Bernie Sanders are the ones with whom you need to establish consensus about the content, not me. General Ization Talk 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That defense was never stated by me. I was going off the seeming consensus that the material was adding too much. I'd note those warnings from last year as well, though that would lead me in the direction of throwing in the towel on here altogether. Informant16 April 19, 2017
@Informant16: Read the policy carefully, please. Your violation was technical, probably not intentful, but was a violation nonethless. If you think the policy is unfair, you are free to not edit, but not free to violate it. Exercise more care and start discussing your disagreements/conflicts (or different understandings of the current consensus) with other editors prior to reverting the same content multiple times and you'll have no problem. General Ization Talk 00:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Informant16: Also, please note that Bernie Sanders is subject to Active Arbitration Remedies (see the top of the Talk page), which includes the special policy that there is a "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." This means that your two reverts on April 13 could have and probably should have resulted in sanctions against you. Again, the case is closed, assuming you will respect these policies going forward. General Ization Talk 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too

About that user I alerted, that you "thanked" me for: I'll eat my admintools if that's a new editor, so I expect they already know all about discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Agreed. General Ization Talk 15:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive Edit

Hi! You said on my talk page, that my edits to the page Talk:HolaSoyGerman was not constructive. I realize my mistake that my edits would break an edit link (sorry!) but I do not believe that the edits were nonconstructive. can you elaborate? Thanks, Jamesjpk (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesjpk: Breaking the link to the Talk page after the move would have been unconstructive, and if you were a new editor who didn't understand redirects or the effects of breaking them it would have been important to let you know that. I templated you initially based on what I perceived as a low edit count so possibly lack of understanding, but, after I reviewed your editing history and gathered it was just an error, you'll note that I removed the template from your Talk page (before you posted here). General Ization Talk 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up! Have a nice day! Jamesjpk (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF?

AGF? Naw, just points for when I accused of not. ;o) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out your edit count after I reverted your edit with that summary and decided that probably wasn't too bright on my part; you probably knew what you were doing. . General Ization Talk 05:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I just wp:huggle. I can't keep policy straight in my head. Do it one way or another and somebody's upset. Please feel free to revert me anytime. (adding) all the IPs revert me, at least for awhile... Do I sound cynical? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

Ontario is a unilingual province. The PC's have never ran under a French name, even regionally.Charles lindberg (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're American, but please do some actual research before editing incorrectly. Only New Brunswick is bilingual. Every other province is English except Quebec which is French-speaking. Charles lindberg (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles lindberg: And you should assume good faith, and use extreme caution in stereotyping any editor based on their nationality. It's actually possible to do the research and come up with an erroneous answer, as apparently I did. General Ization Talk 22:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did no research, be better. Charles lindberg (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles lindberg: OK, how's this: "Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec allow for both English and French to be spoken in the provincial legislatures, and laws are enacted in both languages. In Ontario, French has some legal status, but is not fully co-official." Doesn't sound too unilingual to me. General Ization Talk 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, French is a regionally recognized language is Ontario, Manitoba, and many Maritime municipalities. So is about 50 different First Nations languages. The official language of Ontario is English. See www.ontario.ca/page/about-ontario
And then there's that pesky French Language Services Act, serving 4.1 percent of the population identified as Franco-Ontarians in 2006. My point being that you grossly oversimplify when you describe Ontario as "unilingual", even if the PC's don't use a French name. But thanks anyway. General Ization Talk 22:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited QuizUp America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Icelandic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your hasty Foreign relations of India article redaction (and block warning)

Hi, please do check the content in the edit you flagged, because nothing was blanked, simply re-ordered; Germany and Francke are listed higher-up in the article, so no need to repeat. I shall undo your deconstructive edit now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.254.80.166 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect; you removed more than 1k of content pertaining to shares of EU-India trade, and the original location was fine. Do it again and you will be blocked. General Ization Talk 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to May 5, the entry on Miklós Radnóti

Jews are an Ethnoreligious group. One can be ethnically Jewish without practicing the religion of Judaism, and one can be religiously Jewish without being ethnically Jewish if one converts. I can assure you that the Nazis did not care if Jews renounced Judaism as a faith. Jewish is an ethnic descriptor, and Miklós Radnóti was targeted in the Holocaust for his ethnicity. I myself am of the Ashkenazi subgroup, and I've been taught about the Holocaust since I was a child. I assure you, I know this topic quite well and I know what I'm doing. Asarelah (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC) It is quite relevant to label people who are of Jewish ethnicity as such if they died in the Holocaust due to their ethnicity. Please stop reverting my edits. Asarelah (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Are you still going to insist on reverting my edits? If so, I will take this issue to the appropriate project page so it can be worked out. Asarelah (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asarelah: I appreciate and respect your perspective, but that does not mean your perspective should be adopted within the encyclopedia. Where an article does not describe its subject as a "Jewish Hungarian poet", as at Miklós Radnóti which describes him as a "Hungarian poet", and the article indicates that he adopted another faith in life, his entry on various lists or disambiguation pages should not describe him as Jewish. Further, as I pointed out, your summary saying that the basis for adding the Jewish descriptor is that he died in the Holocaust is clearly misleading and readily misunderstood, as many Christians and adherents of other (or no) faiths died in the Holocaust, some very possibly for reasons other than their faith add: or ethnicity (sexual orientation, collaboration, etc). I urge you to reconsider your apparent task of changing articles to "classify" anyone of Jewish heritage who died in the Holocaust as Jewish. Frankly, I am unlikely to continue reverting your edits this morning, but that is only because I have real life matters to attend to. Another editor may well do. General Ization Talk 13:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles that mention people of Jewish faith or ethnicity only describe them as such in the intro unless the person was a Rabbi or something. This is generally limited to the "personal life" or "personal background" sections. These people were targeted for no other reason than their ethnic background. I can assure that I am well aware Holocaust victims were targeted for reasons other than being ethnically Jewish (as I said, I've been learning about this my since I was a child), but when a Holocaust victim is killed for no other reason than being ethnically Jewish, it becomes highly relevant as it is a defining feature in their lives, and ignoring that constitutes erasure. I will have to take this matter to the appropriate page for other users to offer input and settle this issue. Asarelah (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Asarelah: I encourage you to do just that. Otherwise your neutrality could be questioned (consider that your experience and training could actually be making it hard for you to see other perspectives on this question) or you could be perceived as trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not what we do here. General Ization Talk 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm sorry. No more data. Bye forever. 4/30/2017. Cgx8253.

IP

Do we know who this IP user is? I'm guessing they are already blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: See Cebr1979. General Ization Talk 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just couldn't remember the name. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1900

I know 12/31/1900 is the last year of the 19th century, but Violet can't have it on her page because when either her or another women born in 1900 dies, we can't say their the last ones born in the 19th century, only one can have it. So if violet dies, the survivor should be given that statement of being the last alive in the 19th century. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015 Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthemostwanted2015: The content at Violet Brown is fine as it is. I have modified it slightly ("[Brown] and Nabi Tajima of Japan are the last two living people known to have been born in the 19th century."), but the content is accurate and relevant. When Nabi Tajima passes away the content at Violet Brown will be updated or vice versa. If you think another opinion is warranted, bring it up on the article's Talk page; otherwise, you do not have consensus for the removal of the content. General Ization Talk 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd McKissick Jr

The material I edited onto Floyd McKissick Jrs page is not false or defamatory. It is actions that the public should be aware of. He is an elected official and attorney at law in Durham, NC. The people have the right to know that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowyourlawyer (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowyourlawyer: The material you added which claimed, without a source, that "his former wife said he physically abused her, and in 2001 a former employee of his law firm said he hit her with a telephone" was indeed defamatory when no reliable source was provided to support the claim. Do not add it again without a citation of a reliable source for the claims made. General Ization Talk
I did provide a citation on my edit. I clearly referenced http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/floyd-mckissick-jr-disciplined-by-nc-bar/Content?oid=1191697 The Indy Week is a local new organization here in the Raleigh, Cary, Durham, and Chapel HIll area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowyourlawyer (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowyourlawyer: Since the source says that McKissick was acquitted in the 1995 and 2001 cases, stating what his ex-wife claimed or former employee claimed without including the information that he was acquitted in both cases is defamatory (and the discredited claims are irrelevant to the article). General Ization Talk 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Though you state that I am in an edit war, the truth is that I have posted on the talk page of the article that I edited. Yet, no one has added to the talk despite this. Due to this, I am simply reverted the previous edit back to what I had put it, which fits the format that the list has been going with for at least a year. I do not mean to be in a war, and would like to have a discussion on the talk page, however, if no one adds to it, that is not possible. Tapper930 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapper930: Read WP:EW. You will find that it does not offer an exception to the prohibition on edit warring just because you have posted on a Talk page at 02:43 (UTC) this morning (which will have hardly given anyone time to see it and respond). Since you obviously don't have consensus for the change you are making, do not make it again unless and until you achieve consensus, and do not persistently revert to your preferred version unless you wish to be blocked for edit warring or at the least disruptive editing. General Ization Talk 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though I was the one to remove a single piece of their edit, I was not the one to start the edit war, as I was not the one to be the first to revert. I also simply was following the standard that has been set with how the shows have been placed on the list. The other user was able to see that the talk page had been started-as seen by their edit times and the fact that I had sent a message-but had refused to respond to the message or post. Thus, I figure, as I did not start the war and simply set the list as it has been for the listed time, my edit does not have to be removed.Tapper930 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapper930: The first one to revert does not start an edit war by doing so. Read WP:EW again. You cannot assume that the other editor saw your Talk page comments or has had a chance to respond (believe it or not, they may have other things to do here and/or very limited time available to edit, and the discussion you have initiated may not be their first priority), and more importantly you cannot assume that this entitles you to once again remove the content. Your assumptions will not serve you well if you continue to edit disruptively. General Ization Talk 02:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash ‎

Well my sources were books I've read over the years and like I said the recent hln broadcast in march 2017. Go ahead and delete what I added the article was full of inaccuracies and could be elaborated on. I think you should have given me a chance to defend the truthful content I added or corrected before u put it back to its original state but whatever dont bother me. I will never edit another wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffdimerandy (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cliffdimerandy: Please read verifiability. Your recollections from books you have read over the years are not verifiable. It is your choice whether or not to edit, but if you do so please follow Wikipedia policies. General Ization Talk 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been on wikipedia along as you have and didnt think people got so much in an uproar over editing an article. How do you know I wasn't adding my sources before u deleted everything I wrote. I wrote the truth and made the article believable now its back to its very flawed self. Whatever doesn't bother me I just typed for nothing that's all that I lost. I certainly am not going to sob over this. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffdimerandy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliffdimerandy: You can restore your edits from the article's edit history if and when you are prepared to add citations of one or more reliable sources. Nothing is ever "lost" on Wikipedia. Please always sign your comments on any Wikipedia Talk page. General Ization Talk 01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna ‎

I find the 1st paragraph flawed as it says today Mexico sees him as a national hero and that he fought for Mexico. However he sold out Mexico for gold twice and so directly made Mexico lose Texas and several times was involved in revolutions against Mexico. I don't see this mentioned there. Also Mexico doesn't see him as a national hero. At least one time I checked 46.135.20.20 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)46.135.20.20[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Ization&oldid=779032529"