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.
I removed the speedy deletions from the two architects; not sure if you saw my ping. Ref 2 supports the assertion of 'internationally acclaimed'. Take to AfD if you feel strongly about it, though note my vote would be keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Ref 2 (in both articles) does indeed say that, but the source article in Pacific Rim Construction magazine has no byline and reads suspiciously like a media release. I sure can't find any other sources that mention either one of them outside of PRC magazine and the court documents, and the articles themselves certainly don't establish any reason for notability. I appreciate your position, but as you probably saw I have opened AfDs for both. General IzationTalk 05:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
USB flash drive
Your edit of 26 Dec revised mine to, in your words, state exactly what the citation says. You changed "invented" to "filed a patent" and the inventors are not stated as fact but as credited by M-Systems. This gets wrong some things about how inventions and patents work.
First, patents *are* inventions, like any publication that is early enough and specific enough.
Second, it's not the company (M-Systems) that credits the invention to the inventors, but the US government (USPTO). The identity of the inventors is vouched for by their sworn testimonies, and the patent automatically belongs to them, unless they assign it to someone else (as usually happens with employees and happened here too). Legally, M-Systems did not "file a patent" and "credited" the inventors, but the inventors filed a patent and assigned ownership to M-Systems. USPTO vouches for the identity of the inventors, but do not care who the assignee is, or even if it exists (that's a business issue).
Third, the paragraph now refers to "inventions" twice, in relation to *later* publications. Now, an invention controversy can arise when someone claims to have invented something *earlier* (but e.g. the documentation or the details are disputed). Claiming an invention *after* a published patent is simply bunk, like claiming to have invented flight *after* December 1903. Nobody has yet done that for USB flash drives, so the invention controversy is a fake one. The only way to keep the controversy alive is to hide the evidence. This has already happened 3 times since I posted the patent ref several years ago, last time by you. In further almost-edits I see that you twice came close to deleting it again (The naming of the inventor in a patent ref is not obviously relevant to who invented it? Say that again?).
@Flashdiskpioneer: I have changed the opening of the relevant paragraph from "M-Systems, an Israeli company, filed a US patent on April 5, 1999 ..." to "M-Systems, an Israeli company, were granted a US patent on November 14, 2000 ..." This statement is factual, and sufficiently addresses your argument that the granting of a patent represents an acceptance by the government of the claims in the patent. To know whether the claims in the patent represent the invention of the USB flash drive will require more expertise than the average Wikipedia editor or reader will or should be expected to have. The fact remains that the identity of the inventor of the USB flash drive remains disputed, and the article reflects that. We are not in a position to prove or "debunk" any claim. We report what reliable sources report, neutrally and without speculation or augmentation. Please note, by the way, that your username suggests you may have a conflict of interest in this matter. If you insist on pursuing it, we can take the question to the COI noticeboard. General IzationTalk 14:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Flashdiskpioneer: If you have a reliable source to cite that says that every dispute was conclusively settled in favor of M-Systems being the inventor of the USB flash drive, by all means add it to the article. So far, nothing you have added to the article establishes that, and we will not appear to do so by implication. General IzationTalk 14:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Flashdiskpioneer: As for what I "came close to deleting ... again" it was only the wikilink to Amir Ban, a redirect to Junior (chess), as that article says nothing about the Amir Ban mentioned there having any involvement in the development of flash drive technology. Other than the fact that the Amir Ban discussed there is described as an Israeli programmer, there is no reason to assume they are even the same person. In point of fact, I should have removed the link as I was originally inclined to do. General IzationTalk 15:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Way back on March 26 2015, Robyn Fenty released a new song titled Better Have My Money. The person who primarily wrote this answers the name of Bibi Bourelly a songwriter from NE Germany specifically Berlin.
But, she had written Camouflage for Selena Gomez's sophomore album Revival and also typed two songs for Anti specifically those of Yeah I Said It and Higher.
Then on May 6 and November 11 2016 a pair of EPs both named Free the Real were released. Part 1 containing the singles of Riot Ego and Sally while Part 2 contains the single of Balling.
Since the songwriting credits and guest features are a little bit swollen they rather be split off to its own page. Accept this change. Sourced from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibi_Bourelly.
(Edit conflict) I suspect both 88.20.191.228 and user:Wikicontributor911. Both introduce Exoplanet Channel at YouTube; and because there was another previous sock-puppet called WikicontributorXXX (X being a number) as part of Alfa's socks.
Sock puppet
Hi I just want to tell you Im not a sock puppet of Karan Sharma. Please remove it. I dont know who he is.
Hello. I want to thank you for reverting the persistent vandalism from the Wilson page. A colleague protected the page. The vandalism was probably coordinated from some site. Regards, Kanonkas : Talk 23:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sorry about my edit on Oakland Raiders, there was no intent to vandalize. I had just reverted someone else's bad edit on the article and was a little to quick on the undo button when someone else made an edit, I'll watch myself better next time. ElongatedMusketeer (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the IP on my user talk page. You handled them very well and in an exceedingly respectful manner. Much appreciated! Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I am the social media manager for the Fianna Fáil party.
We would like to make some minor edits to our page.
For instance, new logos and images as well as our 'about' section needs to be updated.
I am new to Wikipedia, so apologies if I have not done this correctly.
Dave Fallon Fianna Fáil (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed your post, and posted information about this on your user talk page. Thanks for inquiring; feel free to ask if you have additional questions; you can ask us directly or you may post to the Teahouse, an area for inexperienced Wikipedia users to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello it's gyan i noticed that you told me to stop editing and i said am trying to protect wikipedia's Information
what's wrong with this?--Gyan333 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello General Ization. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hayley LeBlanc, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: according to easily accessible RS (via GNews), she has received quite a deal of coverage, so please take it to WP:AFD instead. Thank you. SoWhy06:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles.
March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!
Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
My edit to Amaral is correct. Please search “Nestor Amaral” under Google. His name and photo appear numerous times, as does his music under YouTube. He was in several films and nightclub shows, and worked with the famous Carmen Miranda. There are numerous photos of him with Ms. Miranda. LeslieRstevens (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe Nestor Amaral meets the guidelines for a famous person. He can be located by name on numerous google search pages, YouTube, and images. I am trying to find that tilde sign on my keyboard so i can sign this.
LeslieRstevens (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m a new Wikipedia user and still getting the hang of citing sources. However I noticed that my edit was changed back to the old version before I could cite my source. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnm4q8RTEII
In this video he states that his dogs are named Brady and Wilson, one after Tom Brady, and the other Wilson, the name having nothing to do with Russell Wilson.
@Acesliz: When editing biographical articles, and especially if removing cited content, you should include sources for your edits at the time you make the edits. If you fail to do so, you run the risk of the new or replacement content being reverted as unsourced and thus unverifiable. If you cite this video, cite it using the URL that indicates the specific time where this issue is addressed (starting at 3:02). No one should need to watch the entire video to confirm what Kane said about his dogs. General IzationTalk 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Nipsey Hussle
I was under the impression that the source was already cited, and I just changed the grammar issues and "shot multiple times" to "shot six times" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11ALEXANDER11 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Process: An editor adds well researched information to an article. One person - who is a serial content-reverter has ultimate say over the content in the article? This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You are not warning the right person. If the content is not appropriate or incorrect it can be corrected or removed. This user reverted the material twice - I reverted the person twice, and then you stepped in to revert the content, ultimately siding with the serial content-reverter. IMO I think you need to warn the other user more than you need to warn the researching editor. Gristleking (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gristleking: You seem to have misunderstood the procedure here (even though John from Idegon has explained it to you on both your and his Talk page). Once your content has been reverted and you have begun a discussion on the Talk page, you wait for other editors to respond. You may not repeat the insertion of the challenged material until consensus has been achieved through discussion to either insert it, or to not do so. Please note that other editors are not required to respond instantly (and rarely will). I have not "sided" with anyone. I have warned you that if you revert again, you will have violated the three-revert rule, and that you are not following the policy here. By the way, the other editor has performed more than 88,000 edits on Wikipedia over 7 years. You have performed 47 edits in the 2 days since you became a Wikipedia editor. You might consider this as you evaluate whether they, or you, are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and procedures. General IzationTalk 02:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently an ANI discussion about him. My 47 edits are constructive and welcome additions to Wikipedia. You can check them out. So far I see this user's edits as not constructive. I will abide by your power as an admin because I have to. Gristleking (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You are advised to stop posting on other editors' Talk pages describing the other editor as a "serial reverter", which can easily be construed as a personal attack, and to focus on your own edits and actions. We edit collaboratively here, following certain rules and procedures, or not at all. If you continue, you will most likely find yourself in the latter group. General IzationTalk 02:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your multiple warnings and defense of the offender. I have received the message that I have far less value than the other user. You can go support this other editor in the ANI. In spite of my tone I do think you are a very professional administrator, I just think you are supporting the wrong user. Regarding the term serial-reverter I have learned, "where there is smoke there is fire." I do hope I am free to think what I like and to post what I wish on other talk pages. Have a great night. Gristleking (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You are free to think what you like. As I just finished explaining, you are not free to post personal attacks concerning other editors on any Talk page. But of course, you have learned it all in your two days on the site. Good luck. General IzationTalk 02:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your help on Chicago. Not to sound uppity, but may I suggest you disengage at the editor's talk? His unblock request does not address the reason for blocking (not saying anything more per BEANS). And the DUCK quacks loudly too. No sense in stressing over it. Keep up your great work! Feel free to email me if you wish to discuss this further. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Your rapid revert of my edit on the WP article 'Bob Crane'
Hello,
That was a quick and rather substandard revert.
To state: I deleted a section of the Bob Crane article because it was indicating, implying, stating that Crane won two Emmy Awards that he did not.
My reasons were, quote, 'Deleted. This section implies Crane won these awards. He did not, they were won by the actor who played Col Klink. See the WP article about Werner Klemperer.'
"General Ization" immediately reverted this. I screen captured the original part of the article I deleted. Interestingly the reversion by "General Ization" was not the original version but one that had an extra column that read 'nominated', rather than the implied 'won' in the original version as deleted by myself. Interestingly, the reversion note stated, 'Reverted 1 edit by 123.3.237.96: Crane won these awards', and then goes on to list the official Emmies website which shows that Crane was nominated but did not win, just as I noted in my edit comment; 'He did not, they were won by the actor who played Col Klink. See the WP article about Werner Klemperer'.
So all ends well. The article I edited falsely insinuated that Crane won two Emmy Awards when he did not. I edited to properly correct this falseness. My edit was reverted but with the additional section that showed, correctly, that Crane was only nominated for the award but did not win at all. Now time will tell. Will after a 'decent period', will the fake aggrandising material insinuating that Crane was an award winning actor be re-inserted into this article?
I do hope that "General Ization" is as honourable and watching to prevent fake news from infecting Wikipedia, just as I do watch and protect Wikipedia :)
The article text states that Crane was twice nominated for an Emmy award, and the "Awards/nominations" section reflects the same information. It did not and does not state that he won any Emmy awards. Removal of the entire "Awards/nominations" section made no sense, given that he was indeed twice nominated. All that was necessary was the addition of a column to the table that indicated that he was nominated rather than won these awards. That is done. General IzationTalk 15:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Klemperer won Emmys (as Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series) in 1968 and 1969 has nothing to do with Crane's nominations in 1966 and 1967 or with the contents of this article. General IzationTalk 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Please not only sign but also date your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. Just typing your IP address is not sufficient. General IzationTalk 15:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Charlamagne Tha God
Hey. You reverted my edits on this article, telling me that my info was incorrect. How can that be if he said his age during an interview? Anonymous6ix9ine (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw you listed this site to be blocked. The issued was as a result of a shared computer that initiated the persistent changes, that has been resolved and won't happen again. I apologize for the problems caused. The site has information that is very useful. Its was about one link that was persistently being re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and more should be done to curb the issue of anonymous IPs. I didn't notice that earlier, my mistake. And am sorry for the inconvenience caused. I was hoping it can get unblacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 14:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Tara McNeill
You say her year of birth wasn't given in the source but if you believe the source which says she was born on 27 July(you didn't delete that, so I presume you do), then the fact it says the following in the article I used as a source(published 31 August, 2017) means she must have been born in 1989:
That kind of gymnastic is called synthesis here. We don't know when the writer of the article in the Irish News wrote that she was 28 years old. Was it before her birthday that occurred in 2017, or after? Very often articles are not published within 30 days of having been written. We need a source that says she was born in 1989 in order to say it in the article here. General IzationTalk 02:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Pizza
I'm here because you left a message on my talk page claiming my edit "did not appear unconstructive". I explained why I made the edit on the talk page of "Pizza" and will now revert the article to the previous version (I will try to state my intention in a more detailed manner this time). If you are planning to undo it again, maybe you can be more clear about why you deem it "unconstructive". I didn't remove any information, just moved a single paragraph to another section. Iyi muhabbet (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand why you sent me a message to do with Lana's marital status as it's accurate information straight from Lana's official Facebook. Melanieexox (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Am I allowed to link to her Instagram post about the divorce in the Personal Life section? I will leave the info box alone if that was the issue. I'm still getting the hang of things on here.Melanieexox (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Melanieexox: All that can be said based on Parrilla's Instagram or Facebook posts is what she said, and what another editor has already added to the article: "On April 13, 2019, [Parrilla] announced in an Instagram post that she is no longer married." General IzationTalk 15:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
