I came across this as a random article. I see you kept my elimination of the ungrammatical and random text. I don't have a vested interest, but I'm not sure this is a Viking name. I couldn't find reliable sources, but goog did turn up these links:
Peter Flass (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
He is British, undisputed. Lazz R is the one who is being disruptive, he has cited no sources that would consider him to be Welsh and has ignored the reason as to why his page was moved from 'Sasha (Welsh DJ)' to 'Sasha DJ', read all of the 'request page move' section on his talk page and see for yourself. Also are you giving him a warning to ban him too as he is the one being disruptive? I hope this isn't bias. Sellsomepapers (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sellsomepapers: You have been advised multiple times now, by multiple editors, to open a discussion on the Talk page if you think this should be changed. You have failed to do so. I am not going to discuss it with you here. If you change it again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. General Ization Talk 15:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sellsomepapers: As for your claim that no sources describe the subject as Welsh, I had no trouble at all finding one in a single, simple search. You can either improve the article or damage it. I suggest you do the former as the latter will result in your being blocked. General Ization Talk 15:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
--TolhurstJohn (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Hello there,
I've made what I believe is a genuine and useful contribution to the house page.
The house is composed of many systems that deliver to the needs of the occupants. It is true that the solution reflects the culture and resources of the inhabitants.
If you have reverted, you are saying my contribution is untrue or already said. I would like you to demonstrate why, or reverse the reversion.
Thanks very much,
TolhurstJohn (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted because I felt your addition added nothing of significant value to an encyclopedic article on the topic of "House". Not everything that is true or currently unsaid about houses needs to be added to the article. General Ization Talk 01:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe this suggestion is of value. Indigenous people have a right to practice culture. When seeking to improve Environmental Health, governments often fall into the trap of offering the kind of accommodation that they know supports white people in cities. I am trying to establish the principle that the house is a model of culture and that to work, each kind of house requires that particular cultural practices are followed. Therefore donating a house to people who practice a different culture is in danger of not working and in fact this is what we see on the ground. What we see is houses that quickly go into disrepair. The offered solution is well intended but misdirected.
A house is a cultural construct that enables the practice of the culture of the poeple who developed it. This is an extremely important thing to understand about houses and explains a lot of why houses vary from place to place. And why houses that work for some people do not work for others.
As part of my contribution to lifting indigenous health outcomes in Northern Australia I am arguing that we deconstruct the house into the individual systems that deliver the required benefits, so that Environmental health can be improved on a community basis rather than a nuclear family basis.
Understanding that each house is an artifact of the culture that developed it is an important principle that I need to establish. We tend to forget that. The house can also shape culture, so what is provided determines what cultural practices can be sustained. For example, if you are an Australian Aboriginal made to live in a suburban 3 bedroom house in a remote location, you will lose connection to your wider family and to country and as a consequence your health will suffer. This is known now to the case, based on the evidence that has been collected under the Australia Federal Government's Closing the Gap effort.
At present, the wikipedia entry fails to recognise this fundamental point, and is the poorer for it.
Please accept my addition, in support of greater clarity of the deep bond between culture and house form and in support of better housing and environmental health outcomes.
John Tolhurst, Perth Australia
TolhurstJohn (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TolhurstJohn: "As part of my contribution to lifting indigenous health outcomes in Northern Australia I am arguing ... an important principle that I need to establish." No, you don't need to establish it here unless you can provide citations of one or more published, reliable sources that establish it. See Original research. The publication of novel theories and personal opinions of Wikipedia editors is prohibited here in the encyclopedia. If you are here solely for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, you will need to follow Wikipedia policies. If you are here for some other purpose, kindly stop editing before you are blocked. General Ization Talk 14:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Rapoport wrote the Book "House form and Culture" published in 1969 which AFAIK is the best source.
The concept was taught to me by Phillip Gibbs, who was a collegue of Prof Gordon Stevenson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Stephenson) who did the master plan for London following WWII. So, not my theory, I'm just the guy wanting important stuff recognised. Thanks for knocking me into shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TolhurstJohn (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I get why you reverted the punctuation edits, but why did you revert the colon back to a clearly incorrectly used semicolon? "I have a surprise for you; it's cake" is correct; "I have a surprise for you; cake" is not. But "I have a surprise for you: cake," is also correct.
Also why the rv on the Wikipedia wikilink --FeldBum (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to repeat the edits that don't run counter to our MOS. What I mainly saw were the issues with MOS:LQ. General Ization Talk 17:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. --FeldBum (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Or, when reverting someone's edit, you could leave an edit summary explaining why you're reverting it. But here I am. Why did you revert that link? Czolgolz (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Czolgolz: Or you could read the edit summary I left. General Ization Talk 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (talk page watcher) According to WP:EL,
Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article
. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. There was no edit summary originally, that's why I was confused. Czolgolz (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll redo the edits as citations or references instead of links as requested. It is just that the top employers table are significantly out-of-date and there are significant other Livermore sites that should be referenced.
Gregt590 (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I’m sorry for continuously adding to the page. I didn’t see your warnings but I removed the most recent addition of mine. I have a question though; why was the source I used considered unreliable? Starklinson (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the sources used in that sentence? I have. That's why I made the change I did - to match the sources that are already there! This wasn't an unsourced addition, just a correction of a misinterpretation of the existing source. (And, incidentally, the statement that 1933 is nine years after 1924 hardly needs a citation.) 81.100.245.192 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no valid reason to ever bold those kind of redirects. That was one of the weirdest excuses for a revert I've ever seen, especially coming from a very experienced editor. Baffling! Yahboo (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Please stop undoing my changes to the Chicago article. I do not have to provide a reliable source when merely stating that a handful of skyscrapers were constructed in the 1920s, when i linked to each skyscraper's individual Wikipedia page where the year of construction is clearly stated. It's practically common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.177.32.103 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:BURDEN. Readers should not have to visit a bevy of other articles to verify that a claim at Chicago is true. Cite a reliable source or leave the article alone. General Ization Talk 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon! (NOTE: Cross posted from user Mathglot's talk page, as he also sent me a message related to this.)
I wanted to reply to your message and...can't really figure out how to send messages on Wikipedia, so sorry if this is the wrong place, please remove at your leisure. :) But anyway, I was using the Wikipedia pages to build a data table on demographics because I'm curious about data for majority-minority/minority-majority status across the US States, and long-term trends are interesting to me in general. MOST of the pages had such data tables, but the data table listed the White demographic in total (without respect to the Hispanic ethnicity of the population) while the paragraphs immediately above generally listed the Non-Hispanic White population, but not the Hispanic White population (which can be found either on the quick data pages of the 2010 US Census or by simple subtraction). So, needless to say, I was doing this on each page/table myself to get the data to put into my spreadsheet that I'm generating. The reason the division is valuable for the dataset is that Non-Hispanic Whites are the demographic that determines if a state is majority-minority or not, not the overall White population (for example, in California where the overall White population is ~60% but the Non-Hispanic White population is around 36%, making the state majority-minority with an expansively diverse overall demographic makeup).
And I stopped and thought "Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by the body of Humanity to enhance our overall knowledge, right? I'm doing all this work, but it's not being shared with anyone, even though the data is right there. So why don't I make these changes as I go through all the pages to provide that data/ease of reading for other people in the future?" That is to say: I was always taught to share. :)
That, and some pages (like New Mexico's) didn't have a data table AT ALL, so I had to generate one from scratch. Granted, this pointed me to the US 2010 Census page which I can use to get all of my data from (though it's slightly less user friendly than Wikipedia's pages), but it supplies the data and is the source proper for the data anyway.
I apologize for any offense and won't make any more edits. I just was trying to help out since I'm already doing this work anyway, and in the case of the pages that had no table, was trying to bring them in line with the other pages. My base assumption was that since the other US State pages had such data tables, it would make sense for all of them to and it seems the community would accept the presence of the tables (since the majority of the states already have them). But I will cease making any further edits, and sorry for the inconvenience. :( Although I'll note there are probably a few more pages without data tables at all. Should they be left without data tables..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renathras (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Renathras: Continue to discuss with Mathglot on your Talk page. I warned you because you appeared to be ignoring the repeated reversion of your edits rather than discuss them. Now that you are discussing them, I will remove the final warning I left for you. General Ization Talk 21:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't ignoring them, I didn't actually see the message thing at the top of the page. As soon as I saw the alert thing, I noticed it and read the notices, I stopped. Sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renathras (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there,
I see you removed my edit on the Ferb page. That's fine, since I put it in the wrong place in any case. But the article makes no references to "Ferboosh" at all, which Phineas calls Ferb in the opening of Season 2, episode 28 - "The Beak." Can you make a note of it? It's probably not his actual name now I think about it, but I feel it should at least be mentioned in a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.237.61 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Mention it if you can find a published, reliable source that mentions it. Your claim of an obscure reference in one episode of the program doesn't represent a reliable source, nor mean that that's the character's name – only that that is what another character called him (once). Also see WP:COMMONNAME. General Ization Talk 21:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my edit was correct. I was simply syncing Karl-Otto Koch's correct method of death with that mention of him in Ilse's wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khower (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have left you a message on my talk page in response to your message. :) CanineCrew | Have a Great Day!! (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful advice! I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:81:C401:A982:A9AA:576D:1CCB:D19E (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
OK so you reverted my edit,fair enough i appear to have removed the wrong element made it looks sloppy whatev.. However my logic was correct and someone immediately made the revision I intended after your reversion. To then cite me for vandalism with no further explanation is a bit sophomoric. I get it if i did something wrong but, I did in fact make a relevant contribution to an argument which was ratified by the community. So maybe don't act like the grammar Gestapo who doesn't have time to identify an error so they sweep away relevant information with what they deem trash. If my first few sentences seem painful its because they're crafted to annoy someone who feels the need to offer nine links defining proper nouns as a caveat to conversation. Don't worry I won't ever edit or post here again enjoy it as every non-technical corner of this site becomes a spider web of self referencing secondary sources. Or better yet be polite to new people entering your community and be aware of what an out-rite accusation of vandalism sounds like to people unfamiliar with your particular rules and lexicon.
btw we have the technology to pursue infinite IP addresses if i was vandalizing i would do that and leave no explanation. Consider that specifically if you just copy and paste that statement after of all your reversions about the same amount of effort. 96.235.190.16 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- You removed the title of a published Web article within a citation, with a detailed (and erroneous) argument about how it was expressing a flawed assumption. It was the title of the Slate article being cited; the text you removed did not appear in or express any assumption in the Wikipedia article. The title of the cited article did not change at Slate because you objected to it. I'm not sure what you mean by "someone immediately made the revision I intended after your reversion"; as of this writing, my reversion of your edit is the latest edit at and the current state of the article Eidetic memory. I have no idea what revision you actually intended to make, but the one you made was not constructive. General Ization Talk 16:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
|
"...but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." I insert this quotation from Wikipediqa guidelines to illustrate an important point; many researchers (in many other fields, too, but in this case anthropology) find their speciality links to others only if they are closely related but lack, from the point of an overview, coherence when it comes to a question of significance. Oftenn, this only comes when view from 'the outside'.
The point of my submission is to provide this overview; to demonstrate a view of paleoanthropology that is missed because of fragmentation; that in fact a 'truth' of some kind is "staring us in the face".
This 'truth' was, ironically, first expressed by Darwin - hence my reference to his entry in Notebook 'M' - that recall is the basis for all consciousness, that this is what distinguishes human berhaviour from that of other species.
Further, that specialist studies of epochs of human evolution throw up different skeletal evidence ( from actually very few sources) mostly skull fragments. This has in turn led to nomencalture for hominins which divides or clouds, rather than relates or clarifies, the similarities between hominids types. One fact is very apparent: that behaviour identifies the human rather than fossilised remains, that very specific evedince - tool use - defines the human conclusively.
This has been apparent for a long time; one could list the different names for skull types and teeth, enshrined (in Wikipedia, for example) as denoting proto-humans - some no doubt correct, others extrmely doubtful. My supposition, and this is all, is that humans can be grouped,and defined, as being or not being humanby artefacts alone and (thereby) by behaviour.
Archeologists were surprised, astonished, puzzled by the artefacts attributed to Floresiensis. These were tiny individuals, around one metre in stature, producing elegant and sophisticated tools. This removes at last the notion that, to be human, you have to have a large head and brain capacity.
Paleaoanthropology is rocked by one truth after another and should, by now, be used to reassessing fundamental assumtions. Discoveries are now coming thick and fast; Sonia Harmand's discoveries pushes humans tool-making ability (thereby implicitly acknowledging a much older date for consciousness) back towards 3.3 million years. Etymological work demonstrates that, before we get around to tools made of finely worked flint, humans produced finely worked baskets, wooden and bone utensils, leather/hide, woven fibres and bamboo fish traps and hundreds of uswful objects that pre-date flint, no doubt by millions of years.
These conclusionsare supported by Prof. Lorenzon Magnani's work (University of Pavi; abductive reasoning) demonstrating that what we do is what we've always done, even if millions of years of sun, rain and microbes mean no trace remains but flint survives. All the clothes and fisht-raps, wooden sprears and baskets leaft no trace. Does that mean they didn't exist?
So, contrary to conclusions generally held, humans have a history (defined by consciousness) that predates all archeaological records. Perhaps we go back ten to fifteen million years or more.
If this is not 'proven' but abductive, obviously it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia but deleted - and immediately. But, as a 'summary of accepted knowedge regarding its subject' I think it stands as a valuable contribution.
Think of it this way; if Wikipedia and all its entries were enshrined now, as the definitve assembly of all human knowledge ( correct and unassailable) how would it be received even ten years from now?
There is no 'original research' here. Already the reports are 'old' by scientific standards. This is a collection of reports, together with a reasoned overview. Sorry to have frightened Wikipediea stalwarts with the name 'Neoteric'.2A00:23C5:7E1:C500:8DE3:5255:ECF:2D2 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
|
- IP, this doesn't belong on my Talk page, where it accomplishes absolutely nothing. If anywhere, it belongs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoteric evolutionary theory. Also, assuming that you are the author of that article on whose Talk page I left a message last night, please log in before making your comments so that this will be clear to other editors and admins reading that page. General Ization Talk 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I see my gently ironic agreement to delete has been seized upon with some alacrity ! DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @DeQuinceyMalden: We take editors at their word here; irony and sarcasm cannot be readily assumed from characters on a page. I repeatedly encouraged you to participate in the discussion at the AfD page, and you (apparently) refused to do so. I copied your comments to that page, so they would at least be preserved with the records of the discussion for future review. In any case, the unanimous opinion of other editors there was that the article should be deleted, so your "ironic" agreement was really not a factor in the outcome. General Ization Talk 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @DeQuinceyMalden: By the way, you caused at least 10 other editors to waste their time on what they ultimately regarded as foolishness (and I tend to agree); the fact that they did not waste any more time on it, when you refused to participate at all in the defined process for these kind of decisions on Wikipedia, should not surprise you. While you may have no respect for other editors here, they at least have self-respect and know the value of their time. General Ization Talk 13:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I realise as an Editor you have to stand up for others, also providing their valuable time. Honestly, for an 'outsider', the experience is one of straying onto the hostile turf of some oddly arcane gang; the peculiar monikers, the strident language, the beleaguered air of the gang leader trying to control unruly subordinates, the tatty language and resentful attitude of the initiated to the idea of something or (especially) someone 'new'.
Though I've admired Wikipedia and supported it, my clumsy attempt at closer participation reveals labyrinthine complexity; the converts understand it, but it seems awash with needless complexity and clunky design (to an 'average' outsider). As one established editor puts it (newcomers failing to follow 'the rules'): "We've had this problem for years and I'm tired of having to go through it over and over again" (or words to that effect). Have you ever thought of changing it, or would that mean a diminution of influence and control?
So one notices, and is distracted by, the air of confusion and preoccupation with 'gang ritual'; the superciliious request for new-comers to excercise politeness and tolerance, instantly undermined by the vulgarity and bullying fromthe 'gang' members themselves. Yes - it's 'their turf', new voices are definitely unwelcome, especially if the new voice is 'doesn't fit'.
Odd formulas, complex commands and bizarre site-layout isn't there to help; the initiated definitely enjoy the discomfiture of the uninitiated's failure to navigate through a maze of acronyms, initials, formulas, and layers of pages, plus tortuous procedures solely to make sure any new-bug is humiliated. The similarity to a playground or street gang is uncanny; like mysterious handshakes indulged in with deadly seriousness. The stranger has to hide his smile.
Thr ruituals of wikipedians are fathomable,I suppose, but straying onto such alien turf is probably not worth the bother. But then, my encounter with rudeness, vulgarity and hostility might be clouding my judgement.DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @DeQuinceyMalden: Thanks for the essay. Since, despite your loquaciousness, you seem to be incapable of following direct, simple and clear instructions written in English (see your Talk page for multiple examples), I'm not surprised you're having trouble. That capability is indeed a requirement here, and that is unlikely to change to accommodate you. Good day. General Ization Talk 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
Why are u removing facts about Rene Zellwegger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2121:2CC:3141:896A:E6E3:8017:170D (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi there! General Ization has been reverting your edits to Rene Zellwegger because you've been repeatedly modifying and adding content without citing a reliable source. Please read through this guideline page for more information and how to do this. If you have any questions, you're welcome to respond here (General Ization is a nice person and he'll be happy to help you, or you can leave a message on my user talk page - either works. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- In addition, please see my comments already left on your talk page. Having parents who were Norwegian and Swiss does not make her "Norwegian/Swiss-American". She is American. See ancestry versus nationality. General Ization Talk 23:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
General, I take your point. The reference was to the individual posting in the previous Talk page section whom long-time Ref Desk 'monitor' Baseball Bugs had identified as a ban evader who had triggered the current semi-protection of the Desk. In my haste to post (indirectly, via the Talk page) a constructive reply to the query involved, I assumed Bugs was correctly across the situation, and even then qualified the term with "apparently". Nevertheless, I now see that I was pushing the envelope of courtesy.
(Replying on your own User Talk page as my ISP provides only a dynamic IP, so I do not myself have a stable Talk page.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.253 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Presumably you were referring to 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:E179:D971:1694:CF9C as the "miscreant", who had already been identified by Jayron as a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I should point out that "apparently by some miscreant with whom I have absolutely no connection" leaves no doubt as to your opinion that they are a miscreant; in this content, "apparently" shows doubt only as to whether or not they were the actor in the submission of the request prior to your doing so. In any case, you seem to have understand my point, so I consider the matter closed. General Ization Talk 17:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Curious to know the authenticity of the Complaint !
Soo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipta Soo (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sudipta Soo: What "complaint" are you referring to? I don't see any complaint referenced in this edit. Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page (not in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. General Ization Talk 20:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am talking about this text, at the end of "External Links" Section -
- "I want to make a serious complaint, i am writing this because Kalyan shivsena vile nagar and godrej hill shakha pramukh and karyakarta has hacked all the telephone systems. I am unable to contact shivsena to complain against them. They have given lazer activation to me and talking with me in lazer from last two years. They are robbing us,money and food items. They are also given lazer activation to other people and are looting them. They are saying that they have given lazer activation to Raj Thakare and Uddhav Thackeray. And operating them from last two years. So they are not scared of anybody. Our lives are in danger. Please help. They are operating both of shivsena pramukh and mns pramukh. They are threatening me to kill me. They are removing orders and statements of Uddhav Thackeray as they are operating him. We are in very much fear. They are sitting in lazer activation in Godrej hill kalyan there is lock outside but they are inside operating the leaders. Please rade there with force." SooSudipta Soo (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sudipta Soo: I see now the edit you were talking about. This edit had nothing to with Kaldari or the bot. It was added to the article by an IP, and was the edit just prior to the InternetArchiveBot rescuing a link (there is no relationship between the two edits). No one here at Wikipedia can tell you whether what the IP wrote is true, but they supplied no sources to support any of their claims and the content they inserted was placed in the wrong location in the article. The encyclopedia is not a message board; it is not an appropriate place to make such claims, nor to ask for urgent help. I have removed the comments. General Ization Talk 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @General - Can you please share with me the IP from where this was edited. It would be very nice of you !
- SooSudipta Soo (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sudipta Soo: Click on the first link in my comment above ("the edit you were talking about") and you will see it. Please note that they left their comment in mid-July 2018, not recently. General Ization Talk 20:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @General - I am guessing that's a Mac Address. But unable to decode. I also can see that it came from a Mobile phone. Can you please teach me once. Will be ever grateful !
- SooSudipta Soo (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sudipta Soo: Nope, sorry. If you're not familiar with IP addresses and how they work, I won't be able to help you. This is not a matter than involves me (or you, for that matter, but how you proceed is up to you). General Ization Talk 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@General - I understand ! Your hands must be tied. But, I have come this far. Will do the needful. Thanks for the help and guidance.
SooSudipta Soo (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are you threatening to ban me? All I am trying to do is keep this article fair, objective and neutral. Please message me on why the changes I made are in your view "disruptive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto2005! (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Toronto2005!: Do you know how to read edit summaries? Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page (not in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. General Ization Talk 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Would it not be fair to say that multiple sources have stated that Infowars is a "Fake News Website" rather than to state it definitively? We also have to keep in mind that the term "Fake News" has been quite politicized by political figures like President Donald Trump. Sorry for the errors, I am relatively new to Wikipedia.Toronto2005! (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Toronto2005!: (You do not need to create a new section with every comment -- in fact, please don't.) You can propose that change on the article's Talk page. You may not simply remove the sourced content. General Ization Talk 22:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have sources to hand but my vague recollection is that Jones has defended himself (or maybe it was his representatives on his behalf) from accusations of being dangerously unhinged by claiming merely to be an entertainer, just performing an outrageous persona for the business of entertainment. If I am correct about that (and that would need to be checked!) then it would seem that even he has admitted that his schtick is, at least to some degree, fake. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks – though this discussion, if it is to happen at all, should take place on the article's Talk page, not mine. General Ization Talk 22:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- If Alex Jones has the same truth value as professional wrestling, maybe they should be categorized together. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you sent me a message today about reverts that I have made to the Georgia page. I wanted to let you know that while I did edit the Georgia page, I did not revert or undo anything. I don't even know how to do that. I just added Deep South to the geography section without deleting anything already there. The page told me that it would review the edit. I am not sure how to sign. Is this correct? --50.202.217.173 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- See Edit warring. General Ization Talk 15:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Please explain to me what I did wrong. I did not remove anything. I don't know how to revert edits. 50.202.217.173 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- You repeatedly reinserted the text you preferred, even after other (more experienced) editors removed it. See Edit warring and the multiple notices on your Talk page. General Ization Talk 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
It never went on to the page. I made a request. Not an edit. My talk page talks only about edits that I never made from times that I wasn't even a Wikipedia user. I have no idea how I am involved with this. 50.202.217.173 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Really? The facts appear to contradict you. General Ization Talk 16:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry. My talk page also says I made edits to the Goucher college page. I became a user this year but I am also being accused of edits made in 2014. I am not trying to do what you are accusing me of. 50.202.217.173 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please a) stop posting here on my Talk page and b) stop edit warring at the article Georgia (U.S. state). These instructions should be extremely clear to you. General Ization Talk 16:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look at the {{they}} and other related templates. I find them quite useful just a moment ago.
Also, the impulse to tell someone to chill out is understandable but rarely works. 
-- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses: Re: {{they}}, etc.: Actually, I just double-checked to confirm that all of my references to you on your Talk page were GNL, and I believe they are (not the result of conscious effort, I have just been pretty well-trained over time). Are you referring to the admittedly awkward construction "that would allow them" where "them" is referring to you? Or have I missed your point entirely? General Ization Talk 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see; you used them to refer to me and therefore to choose the correct pronoun automatically in your comments (though I haven't said, so it defaulted to "they"). It's cool, but, honestly, I'll just try to stick with GNL! General Ization Talk 02:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Understandable if you're well trained.
I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to inform me as to what was wrong with my ebit?SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave: Let me answer that by posing a question to you: Are you under the mis-impression that Wikipedia is a humor site? That can be the only reasonable explanation for this edit. General Ization Talk 01:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's a simpler explanation. SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- And? General Ization Talk 01:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- The simpler explanation is that I'm new to Wikipedia, (as you can see on my contrib page) and am just learning the ropes. SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave: If your judgment is so bad as to think that replacing an accurate description of an image in the encyclopedia with one containing only "humorous" misinformation is acceptable behavior for any editor, new or old, I predict your career here will (thankfully) be very short. Be aware that doing so will result in your being blocked from editing. If you are interested in contributing to the project, you will not do this again. Any other questions? General Ization Talk 01:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a question.SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thanks. I considered {{uw-joke2}}, but in this case I personally felt this went a step beyond "humorous editing", to {{uw-vandal2}}, by virtue of the act of removing an accurate caption and replacing it with a joke. My conversation with the editor above hasn't changed my opinion on that. General Ization Talk 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're assuming bad faith based on our "conversation"? That saddens me.SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Which is your previous account? —AE (talk • contributions) 05:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I say don't assume bad faith then it happens again. Wow. And I'm the newcomer.SailingAwayOnACrestOfAWave (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is a corollary to AGF: Don't assume stupidity on the part of other editors and admins. You might consider it. General Ization Talk 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- And indeffed by Bbb23 based on a CU check (thank you). General Ization Talk 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why would you delete the main articles of Edward and Henry and put Stanley Duck and Hiro on the main section list when they don’t appear that often?! Trainboy 48 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Trainboy 48: Why would you fill the article with
<nowiki> tags preventing the correct formatting of the article? Please pay attention to what you're doing. General Ization Talk 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- All I was just doing is fixing some odd changes to the articles putting back all the details that were there. Trainboy 48 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Trainboy 48: Click on the highlighted link in the comment I left for you just above to see what you actually did. General Ization Talk 21:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, General Ization. Regarding Hijuecutivo, I suspect you are dealing with a "special" account from a bygone age (and from a different wiki) prone to fabricate sources (Marimon, "Carmina Losa" (sic)[2][3]) and more troubling actions, with a similar talk page "signature" style. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the tip. General Ization Talk 21:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi General Ization,
Could you explain to me why you consider my edit vandalism?
Isaac Asimov was born in Russia so to call him Russian-American is completely reasonable. There are plenty of other individuals described this way on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It's not like I said he was from Spain or Mars ...
Regards,
Spencer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supenno (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Supenno: Click here. Do you see the commented message that appeared in the article prior to your editing it? What does it say? Why did you remove that instruction and replace it with your content? As I said in reverting your edit, "ignoring a note to editors is rarely a good idea." This has been discussed literally for years, and the consensus of other, experienced editors here is that he should not be described as Russian-American. That should be all you need to know, but if you want to review their discussions, click here. General Ization Talk 01:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, MOS:BIO (referred to in the note you removed) states clearly that ethnicity should not generally be stated unless it is relevant to the person's notability, and that the citizenship stated should be that when the person became notable. Asimov was an American. General Ization Talk 02:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
95.160.177.162 has started an edit war with me on the Warsaw Uprising article whilst unironically claiming that I started it. I have reason to believe that this anonymous user is actually LechitaPL based on the fact that while the anon responded to my latest edit on the talk page, it was LechitaPL who reverted it. This is in addition to LechitaPL making identical statements to the anonymous user in past discussion on the Warsaw Uprising talkpage, such as Dirlewanger suffering 3,000 killed and missing when the figure actually refers to total casualties, as well as calling anything he disagrees with a “brazen lie”. Presumably he is using an anonymous account so he can revert me more times, or possibly to hide the fact he is Polish and avoid accusations of bias. Your input on that article, which you have recently been active on, would be much appreciated. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well I suppose that’s a no then. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Roddy the roadkill: Sorry, I really have no particular expertise on the Warsaw Uprising; I believe my involvement at that article was simply trying to put a stop to some bad behavior (don't remember and haven't looked to confirm). If you believe that someone is edit warring there, WP:ANEW is the place to request administrator intervention, and WP:RFPP the place to request the article be protected. General Ization Talk 15:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See the feedback page - I hope this will be self-explanatory DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
...the immediate impact of this, while intended to get users to discuss their issues on their own talk pages, has resulted in users attacking Kharon directly, in front of the OP, on the science ref desk. I myself had been wondering if Kharon was the reincarnation of StuRat, who has left Wikipedia, but Kharon has been around quite a while, so I doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs: Should the section be sent to the archive or removed altogether? I'm OK with it either way. General Ization Talk 11:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- First I'm curious to see whether the perpetrators back off from their attacks. But I do think archiving it would be best, sometime soon. Here's one thing, though: The ref desk talk page has often been used to discuss disruption. Some editors have tried to enforce the notion of keeping that kind of stuff between editors rather than being on the ref desk talk page. But I don't think there's ever been consensus about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Gen. Ization! When you undid User:Wh--eel on the wh--eels's is chinese's edits on Scathophagidae at 20:53, you forgot to undo User:220.71.222.131's edits at 20:51. The IP put some garbage on the Chinese and fellatio in that article. Unfortunately, when I try to revert from my last edit, it's not letting me change the Chinese/fellatio parts back. Khemehekis (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Khemehekis:
Done General Ization Talk 01:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The user WITI Editor seems to be editing the page Women_in_Technology_International. This seems like a big conflict of interest to me as the first 4 letters of the name are WITI which corresponds to the article, as well as that the user only edits that page. I left a message on it's talk page but haven't received a response. What do you think about it? I'm thinking possibly a paid editor or at least someone working for the organization. Kyle Bryant (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Issued a {{uw-coi}} template and reported at WP:UAA. Please always place new comments at the bottom of any Talk page. General Ization Talk 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
