This is an archive of past discussions with User:General Ization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
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.
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.
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.
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 IzationTalk 20:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
Arbitration
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.
[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)
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 IzationTalk 18:35, 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 IzationTalk 00:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, General Ization. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! I noticed that you left a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on an IP's talk page here, after they made self-reverting test edits on Talk:Harry Potter reading "harry potter is the best". This seems like a very serious bite for a harmless good-faith test; was the template a mistake? If so, I'm afraid the damage may have already been done but I'd recommend replacing it with a welcome message (or at worst, {{uw-selfrevert}}). Thanks! — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Reason for removal
Hello general,
I noticed that yOu have been removing categories related to nizam's and hyderabad but, without any reason given.
@शुद्ध भारतीय: That wasn't a rhetorical question. I can open an investigation to establish whether that's the case, but I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. If I don't hear from you, I will set that inclination aside. General IzationTalk 17:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
lol, at 1st i was like why is anyone talking about sock (like asocks-shoes?!), no sir, dont have much time for all that. anything specific you wuold like to hear from me? please feel free to ask.शुद्ध भारतीय (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@TheRealFolkBloos: Actually no. He said that "You'd be surprised how many people don't even know that there's a Second Amendment; we need to bring them up to speed". You might infer that he supports the 2A, but that isn't what he said in that video, and we don't operate on inferences here. Either add a reliable source that clearly supports your statement, or your statement stays out. General IzationTalk 03:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, but another editor has reverted my rewrite of the sourced material. You might wish to make your views known at Talk:Island (the only discussion currently open there). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I intend to contest this. Your declaration that this is an illegitimate topic is entirely subjective. The train happens to have been the premier namesake train for the Ontario Northland Railway, as per the Official Guide for the Railways, 1945, 'Ontario Northland Railway.' I notice that you have left standing other items on the same disambiguation page lacking articles. To wit: "The Northland", those parts of the Kansas City metropolitan area north of the Missouri River
"Northland", a region in northeast Columbus, Ohio, USA
This game (pre-existing article), a very dubious inclusion: Northland (computer game), published by Freeverse Software
What is your authrotity to delete someone's work with no dialog before the act?Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I will remind you that there are innumerable links to on disambiguation pages, items having no existing article or pre-existing article.Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dogru144: This falls under the heading of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because there may be other items added to a list that should not be there under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which have not yet been removed, does not mean that you should add more or that what you add should not be removed. As it stands, I have removed the redlink to the name of the train, since no article exists now, nor is it likely to be created because the individual train is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. (If you disagree, create the page; see WP:WTAF.) The entry remains on the page only by virtue of the notability of the railway, though it may or may not remain if other editors take exception to it. As for the "innumerable" links having no articles, yes, there probably are, and a like number are removed from those lists each and every day. General IzationTalk 02:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dogru144: As for authority, any Wikipedia editor may add or remove content when the addition or removal is in keeping with Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines (and, in some cases, consensus), and no editor may declare that other editors do not have the authority to do so. Please read WP:OWN carefully.General IzationTalk 02:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Response to your deleting : Mathieu Madénian
This is a very serious case that shakes the world of French and international humor as North American and European humorists are affected by this case.
We talk about it on the Internet, on television and on radio in France and abroad. As you will notice the sources are from French sites but also international web sites.
I changed the state capital articles to be the same as most national capitals, and was pre existing on some. P.S. I've never had 40+ reverts come through on alerts before; that was an experience. IWI (chat) 21:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I startled you. Not sure about any differences between the national capital articles and state capitals, but any page that uses {{infobox settlement}} expects a specific type of settlement (or more, separated by and) in the settlement_type parameter. General IzationTalk 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you please be more careful in the future with rollback, your intentions were well but you can't blindly use a tool without checking each revert properly. This is something I would never do with rollback. IWI (chat) 12:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits.
For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits.
Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits.
For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles.
The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now!
Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk.
Hi General Ization, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
–ScopecreepMerry Xmas / Happy New Year 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas!
Hello General Ization,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Seasonal Greetings
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
Hello General Ization, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎)20:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello General Ization, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
User creating celebrity categories against WP:OCEPON after having many of them deleted per your nomination.
You previously dealt with this user and nominated many of their creations for deletion at [[19]] (others can be seen on that page as well.) This user is still creating these categories, and I was alerted to this through their addition of one of them in [this edit.] A quick look at their contributions shows many have not been dealt with. [[20]]. - R9tgokunks⭕22:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
3RR on Dr William Ruto's Page
It seems that we are in some sort of picle regarding his doctoral tag. He as formally assumed the use of the tag hence warranting it's application in his page but you seem to be reverting it. Case on point is use on his official Twitter handle and refference by other individuals in the country. Please inform me what guided your reversion. please note that the Regards. Shadychiri (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Please note that he reffers to himself as husler and has come to be nicknamed as such, I'll give you sufficient local citation on that.
@Shadychiri:See MOS:DOCTOR. We do not use academic or honorific titles in the lead or infoboxes here, whether or not the subject prefers them. By the way, I suggest that you become familiar with the meaning here of "3RR" before you start throwing the term around. It doesn't mean what you think it means. As for the nickname, the fact that a Web site referred to him as a 'Hustler' (not Husler) doesn't mean that it's a commonly-used, much less accepted, nickname rather than an insult. It just means that it appeared in a web page headline. Lots of things appear on web sites we won't publish here. General IzationTalk 13:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and, as is clear from that link, it is controversial and not widely accepted by Kenyans, even if Ruto likes it; hence we will not use it here. He can call himself whatever he likes. We don't need to indulge him. General IzationTalk 14:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I won't refer to it as disruptive editing because, as per the disruptive editing page citation below
...If editor restores, or unreverts:
If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear...
You reverted my edit for no good reason. Patents are valid sources for a text that says that a patent was filed. They are also legal proof of invention, and their (accepted) claims detail the inventive step (the "technology"). I will redo the edit without the patent reference for now, though I do think it should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashdiskpioneer (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The three people are the three named as inventors in the patent title page (link below for your convenience), and assignee is M-Systems. So I think my edit is very well-sourced.
Yes, but you said "I will redo the edit without the patent reference for now", leading me to assume that the link you just mentioned would not be added. Also: see WP:PRIMARY concerning primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The patent document is a primary source, which we generally do not permit without relevant secondary or tertiary sources. General IzationTalk 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You ought to read this.
Hi there. I think you ought to take a read of this when you have the chance:
I received a ping for this edit by Myalternate account. After reading the edit summary, I can say for sure that's not me. I'm actually trying to avoid editing a lot on here because I got mentally exhausted by the edit-warring debacle and I don't want to endure another hassle like that. Seeing as you're the one who reverted that edit, I just wanted to let you know that I honestly didn't make that edit in the first place. Alivebills (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alivebills: I believe you. There is a known LTA actor who does this (self-identifies as another, uninvolved editor at noticeboards in order to try to get them blocked for sockpuppetry) on a regular basis. General IzationTalk 13:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
David Bowie/Roy Harper
General Ization,
I left you a note last night, (this morning at 2am), which was grammatically wobbly. I have addressed these grammar issues, and added to the note. I'm now re-sending it.
.........................
Friday 28th December 2018 02:00am
Tonight I noticed that I had a message in the sandbox, and discovered that the piece that I had added to the David Bowie article had been deleted.. And that, apparently, I had vandalised the page!! .. This had, (apparently), been deleted by someone saying "Not True. I was there!"
Well, so was I! I can remember sitting in the audience as David mimed. He had a Grundig tape recorder with him onstage, and he was miming to music coming from the recorder. I remember exactly what he was wearing. I went backstage after his performance, because there was a break, after which I was due onstage. Something unusual happened to him that night, but this has already gone beyond what's necessary to convey authenticity in this matter. My memory is clear, and can be attested by any number of people who are still alive.
So what might wikipedia have against the truth? Perhaps it's annoying that people in their 70's, and beyond, are still alive to attest their work and those who shared in it along the way. Or perhaps I'm writing to a bot. Or perhaps I'm writing to someone much younger who is living in a country thousands of miles/kilometres away. Or perhaps it's just a matter of bureaucracy, or form..
Lengthy essay concerning the editor's impressions and opinions about truth and Wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I must admit that I don't really have the time to correct all the errors in texts written about myself, but that latterly wikipedia has become more 'organised' in its treatment of articles written about living people. The article on myself has undergone some good changes in the recent past in terms of its shape and language, but wikipedia has to be careful that it is not editing its subject, or things seminal to its subject's process or achievements, out of any given article.
Because I don't really have the time to become a full time editor of anything other than what I write, I have to respect, generally, what is written about the times I've lived through. In my visits to wikipedia, I sometimes browse events I've attended in the past. Generally speaking, the input to wikipedia is somewhere near the mark, but there are times when I find discrepancy between what I think I know to be true, and someone else's opinion on the subject.
Sometimes I see something that 'omits' fact. This is one of those. I don't usually attempt to change these texts, but lately, considering certain injustices that have taken place against me, and against my name, I have taken to wanting to redress the balance a little. Wikipedia is not the only culprit. The whole of English speaking society, if not world society, has changed drastically from democratic exchange and facilitation to a harder and much less communicative model based on draconian movements of previously unimaginable scale which seem to revile the very basis of reason.
No doubt in time the humans will revert to humanity, but they might not. Small considerations like population density might obstruct the path to actual freedoms in such a manner that the animal itself is changed beyond former recognisable mentalities. This is happening in any case, it's just a matter of how quickly more autocratic changes take hold; and how the sheer speed of their arrival shapes future mentality. The manner in which the animal has treated it's own planet might also impinge upon its viability, sooner rather than later.
However, these are chestnuts some of us have been roasting for decades. The points that I'm making are that, a, I don't vandalise wikipedia, and b, I only address what I consider to be either an error or an exclusion or 'oversight'. Admittedly, the latest correction I've made could be classed as an act of vandalisation, but at least it got your attention.
I never mean to be rude, and I'll always be respectful, but at this moment I might as well be talking to the wall. You are not yet a real person. I have not discovered you. We have not yet had an exchange that I would regard as not being part of some automised procedure.
Finally, I will always defend what I believe to be true. I'm very tired of being trodden on at present. There is much to enjoy about my own life, but at the edges it is constantly frayed by lunatic fringes of chattering apes who think that justice entails nailing everyone to their own ideas of what it should mean at its most Orwellian.
I wrote the song dedicated to the Big Brother ethic Orwell had predicted, and we were all too aware of in 1984. It was called Nineteen Forty Eightish. To quote the first four lines, 'The lemmings push their pens and rush, in hordes of crashing stupor, towards the farms of Babylon, to scramble Mother Nature...' etc. This ethic is now manifest throughout ALL social media, including wikipedia. Obviously.
Last night I provided you with a screen shot of a photograph of the poster for that 1968 tour. As you will discern, it is authentic. No one would be able to produce anything like that in 2018 without spending precious time and cash just to send it to wikipedia to be trashed. I WAS part of a tour that was a double bill of Tyrranosaurus Rex and Roy Harper, supported by Stephan Grossman and David Bowie. And one of the venues we played was The Royal Festival Hall.
To deny that, as wikipedia, a body of editors, is frankly stupid and meaningless.
I WILL fight this one. I realise that it's something and nothing, insignificant, and that it doesn't actually matter at all, but I will fight it.... because what I've said IS true. And there's no end of proof. I will hope that we don't have to do this in front of a wider public than already share this missive. And because its public needs to be warned about wikipedia. Warned about a deviant source of editorial, posing as factual, when in fact, a fair percentage of it is probably fake, as they would say in the Trump vernacular.
Until recently, I've been a big fan of wikipedia, but I have to say that I'm not so sure about the validity of all of its policy directives, some of which appear at present to be perched on inaccessible plinths akin to those often epitomised in the public places of repressive regimes.
Wikipedia may not survive any more honest or less convoluted successor, particularly in its biographical content. Wikipedia should neither be a policewoman nor a nanny. Neither judge nor jury. Neither watchdog nor posse comitatus.
It should not insinuate or, however mildly, incriminate. It should not continue to support and protect a smear, however intentional, or not. It has to steer clear of anything that could be construed as bias or messaged in anyway from, or allied to, any state agency. Otherwise it might as well become an arm of the state.
Apologies, sincerely, but I'm tired, very tired, of offering facts that are immediately considered to be untrue, or at best apocryphal, when I know myself that they are exactly right, beyond any reasonable doubt!
Not all of the people featured on the poster I sent last night are dead, including the people who commissioned it, and at least one other who shared the stage on that tour. I.e., there are living witnesses, some of whom may live for another twenty or thirty years.
@Norgay53: Please read the Wikipedia essay Verifiability, not truth. It addresses the central point of your misunderstanding and the cause of your frustration. To be absolutely candid, it doesn't matter who you claim to be, what you to claim to know or whether "you were there", as this not a magazine article, a fan site or a first-person memoir. This is an encyclopedia, and that being the case, one of our core policies is that everything a reader finds here must be verifiable by the reader (independently of and regardless of the identity of the editor who contributed it). Usually, and always if the contribution is challenged, this is accomplished by including citations of published, reliable sources that support the contribution. In the absence of such verification, the content is removed. Whatever your good intentions, there are others not so bound by (or clear on) the facts and the need for content here to be factual and neutral, and without such policies the encyclopedia would degrade into a collection of falsehoods, half-truths, misinformation and personal opinions unfounded in fact.
If you want to write about your experiences and have them accepted on face value as the truth because of who you are or your personal knowledge (which is not itself verifiable), you will need to find another place to do it. Perhaps the aforementioned memoir would be a good vehicle for sharing your experiences, but we do not publish memoirs here. In fact, we have a very clear policy here against autobiography, but I have already explained that and given you resources to review our policies on your Talk page. If you continue to edit the article Roy Harper or any article directly related to him, and especially if you fail to provide independent, published sources for everything you contribute, you will most likely find yourself blocked from editing under this policy. General IzationTalk 17:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh no worries! I'd rather people keep me on my toes than not. To the article; it's interesting to watch it evolve as people try to figure out how to properly format the article with this additional information. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone posing as me!
Editor's opinions about another editor's post here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand just how stressful that could be. One doesn't imagine that there are warring factions among administrators or editors. This means that the whole structure of wikipedia is in danger of being undermined, or taken over by forces of extreme socio/political or pathological natures. So how do I/we expose this/these character(s)? And do you have an ID for him/her/it/them that will not be seen on/in this post? What recourse is there? I realise that I can be taken down, at least as an editor, for continuously 'vandalising' a page, but wouldn't this eventually attract the attention of superiors to a problem? Or are they involved in wars as well? Or is it more bolshevic than that? Can I be taken out as an editor by a junior administrator? I'd be grateful for a reply.
@Norgay53, as you are completely unaware of the specific circumstances I was discussing with another editor here on my Talk page, and they didn't involve you, I'd suggest you stay out of it. The other editor whose misbehavior we were discussing has already been dealt with. General IzationTalk 23:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
