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:
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: ~~~~.
This is General Ization's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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, 27, 28Auto-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. |
Ulala's New Voice Actor
Sorry, I didn't know. However, both SEGA and Grounding confirmed that Ulala was getting a new voice actor for the new upcoming Space Channel 5 remake called Space Channel 5 VR: Kinda Funky News Flash. The game itself is set to be released in 2019, but informational sources such as Twitter confirmed that Ulala is going to be voiced by Cherami Leigh succeeding Apollo Smile, who will no longer be voicing her.
About Sky High (2005 Film)
It was proven last year that a VHS release for Sky High exists, later today I can show you pictures to see it exists, so I feel like the undo of my edits was wrong and am asking for the edits to be reverted, thanks Justdancingsam (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)JustdancingsamJustdancingsam (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Justdancingsam: "I can show you pictures to see it exists" is not a reliable, published source that is verifiable by any reader of Wikipedia. Your edits will not be reinstated without citation of a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization Talk 15:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Very well, thanks anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdancingsam (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
- Justlettersandnumbers • L235
- Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Maine CD2
I would remind you about edit warring; even if you are correct, edit warring is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- No need. I'd be happy if you'd point out where I have violated that policy. General Ization Talk 20:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean; the last revert did indeed cross a line. Do you want me to revert myself? General Ization Talk 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that's problematic, since the other editor already reverted (so I would be reverting to their previous reversion, same as the current). I'll just leave it here. General Ization Talk 20:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it as that should make it the way it was before the addition, to allow for discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. General Ization Talk 20:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted it as that should make it the way it was before the addition, to allow for discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that's problematic, since the other editor already reverted (so I would be reverting to their previous reversion, same as the current). I'll just leave it here. General Ization Talk 20:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Embarrassing fact...
I accidentally thanked this edit... What a shame! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
PiS your revert
[1] You reverted to version 866789702 commenting "This is the version before the edit war started." There was a disc and consensus to adapt the political position and ideology section. [2], [3], [4]. I communicated the changes [5], [6], [7], [8]; provided fresh news/sources [9], [10], [11] and even announced the changes [12], [13].
The user RJFF [14], Vif12vf [15], Wroclaw2468 [16] and Mélencron [17] did the reverts without participating in the disc and without any consensus.
Therfor I would ask you to revert back to version 867073714. Kind rgds --84.226.141.191 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus is subject to change. It is not simply a small number of editors expressing consent. RJFF has participated in the discussion and offered an alternative view. There is currently no consensus, and I will not revert to your preferred version. General Ization Talk 18:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Consenus can change. But then "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). I have made an effort here to show the links resulting in the consenus. user:RJFF did not participate in the disc before reverting my edit. So why are you resisting to revert to version 867073714 before EW started (as it is good practise in WP)? --84.226.141.191 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see appropriate explanations in edit summaries for the reversion of your edits. My reasoning is explained quite clearly above. Also, is Unfiltered1984 your registered account? I have reason to believe it is. General Ization Talk 18:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Consenus can change. But then "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). I have made an effort here to show the links resulting in the consenus. user:RJFF did not participate in the disc before reverting my edit. So why are you resisting to revert to version 867073714 before EW started (as it is good practise in WP)? --84.226.141.191 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- You don't address my points (like editor's obligations after changing without consensus / RJFF reverted without any disc beforhand / all other users that reverted afterwards did not & do not particpate in disc / good practise for restoring last version before EW started). Instead you refer me to "My reasoning is explained quite clearly above." I started here and prefer to edit as IP. I have created the user account as it was suggested by another user. What is the correct way to change it to the consensus reached 03.11. on talk page? --84.226.141.191 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is a difference between suggesting something is helpful and an "obligation", and between that and a policy. Edit warring is a policy. Unless you are able to establish a clear consensus for the change you want to make, you do not have consensus for it, and if you edit war to assert it you will be blocked from editing. I trust this answers your questions. General Ization Talk 00:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- You don't address my points (like editor's obligations after changing without consensus / RJFF reverted without any disc beforhand / all other users that reverted afterwards did not & do not particpate in disc / good practise for restoring last version before EW started). Instead you refer me to "My reasoning is explained quite clearly above." I started here and prefer to edit as IP. I have created the user account as it was suggested by another user. What is the correct way to change it to the consensus reached 03.11. on talk page? --84.226.141.191 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
North Korea Censorship Incident
I was just messing around. Won't happen again