User talk:General Ization/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

HS2000

Hi.This is non-existent state ,this is sock puppets from Serbia.Look a year ago the same thing was tried to change that and it was edit war.Look History and please restore.Thank you

The edit was reliably sourced, and you (including your other IPs) were edit warring over it and had exceeded 3RR. Be glad I haven't taken you to WP:AN3, and leave it alone. General Ization ^Talk 05:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit was no reliably sourced .Here's the difference and the proof is why you should go back to the original.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=846102820&oldid=846096145 And this same try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=847952350&oldid=847928627 It is a non-existent state and should not be classified as normal states

Apparently you don't understand the phrase leave it alone. Is that correct? General Ization ^Talk 05:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There; El C has resolved the issue for you. General Ization ^Talk 05:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Chromatography‎

Is the IP edit previous to the one you undid also bad (183.77.232.1 was just on top of 2.49.247.103)? DMacks (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think what you're inquiring about was collateral damage from reverting the effects of an automated attack using an IP. General Ization ^Talk 05:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that was actually a constructive edit (among many non-constructive) that got reverted in a mass rollback. I've self-reverted. General Ization ^Talk 05:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking and cleaning up the clean-up! DMacks (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Person on a mission

Hi, following from your comments at the El Paso shooting article, I got to looking at the edits of this user - User:5Ept5xW. This person is searching Wikipedia for instances of 'manned' and replacing them with 'crewed'. I think this type of systematic replacement is troublesome. I remember looking at Wikipedia a few years ago and there was someone at that time carrying out wholesale replacements of British Isles with 'Britain and Ireland'. As I recall, this caused enormous aggravation and ultimately resulted in bans and blocks all over the place, as many other editors on both sides of the debate waded in. I suspect this is what's going to happen with the 'crewed' vs 'manned' campaign - if it hasn't already happened. Do you know if anything can be done to stop this user imposing an agenda throughout Wikipedia? 31.52.163.85 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Further - take a look at this edit [1], where apparently 'man-hole' is not acceptable. Like I say, users carrying out wholesale changes such as this are using Wikipedia to promote their own agenda; not a good situation. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@31.52: I don't know if that's what's happening here. This user seems to be just doing generalized cleanup.^[2][3][4] I'm not sure it has anything to do with imposing an agenda. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (talk page watcher) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

She - and I assume it is a woman -He appears to be using cleanup as an excuse to remove terms he doesn't like. I think it needs looking at in more detail before it gets out of hand. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

31.52, I agree with your assessment of the editor and their edits (assumptions about gender aside). They do seem to be attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and lack any real understanding of the potential for de facto historical revisionism and other inappropriate byproducts of global replacement without context. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to deal with this other than our existing community processes. The editor seems to frequently be engaged in edit wars and other conflicts, and to be quite thin-skinned, and usually that combination eventually leads to their disengagement from the project (voluntarily or involuntarily); but it can be quite a long time (and consume a lot of other editors' time) before that happens. General Ization ^Talk 15:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at their Talk page in more detail. This really is a problem user. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, how's it going? Any questions? Since you have reviewed my edit history you will see that gender neutrality is no longer a significant part of the editing I have been doing. As you may or may not be aware, I am a new user who is still trying to figure out what the rules are here - feel free to talk to me instead of going to the trouble of all this. Also, when people get hostile towards me I am unsure what to do - I have been trying not to respond in kind but it seems as though this is not the impression you have been getting. 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"This" has been no trouble. I stand by my comments based on my previous interactions with you, but I'm glad if experience, or something else for that matter, has caused you to moderate your approach to editing (and perhaps your choice of subjects to edit) in the few weeks since we last interacted. I do try to assume good faith, and I do so of you ... but I was not confident that your approach to editing and collaborating with other editors was going to result in a lengthy career here. Here's hoping my impressions prove to have been wrong in the long run. General Ization ^Talk 19:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad to here it although I am somewhat surprised - your comments in general have seemed to carry quite a bit of emotional weight. I suppose you and others can watch as I continue to make constructive edits. 5Ept5xW (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing another editors talk page comments

Please don't edit another editors talk page comments, as you did here. Please also familiarize yourself with WP:TPG. Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: Do us both a favor: if you see something I do that you think needs correction, and you feel your only choices are to a) leave a condescending message on my Talk page or b) take the matter to WP:ANI, take it directly to ANI. It might also occur to you that there are other options than just those two. I could explain to you why my edit was appropriate, and how the other editor involved and I have no problem with each other's edits, but I think I'll just leave it there. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please update afromentioned status of people, thank you.

So now that multiple media/government sources have used "Domestic Terrorist" to describe both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter, can you please kindly change it to reflect such a thing? What more do I have to do to get these monsters represented properly on their respective pages? Living in Ohio as well, I'm pretty sure I have dedicated more time to the news coverage in Dayton than most, so I'm watching and hearing these people (media and state politicians) describe and label them as such, so can you please show the changes reflected here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeItIs17 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Discuss on the Talk pages of the respective articles, not on my Talk page. Please sign your edits on ANY Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 23:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:LikeItIs17

Take a look at this editor's user page. Is this from account a sock user? Let me know; just do so by messaging me on my user talk page or by responding here (ping me in your response if you reply here so that I'm notified)... I'm curious as to why this user wrote that message on their user page... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also ... but haven't taken the time as yet to try to locate the edit to which they refer. General Ization ^Talk 11:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

what do you mean you also General Ization ? You kept changing the information presented on the page. Guess it's done and over with anyways. No point in beating a dead horse ~Oshwah~LikeItIs17 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@LikeItIs17: Were you just attempting to impersonate Oshwah, an admin? If so, there are unpleasant consequences for that. General Ization ^Talk 18:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

General Ization - LikeItIs17 simply copied and pasted my username from my signature in order to ping me in his/her response, not to try and impersonate me. LikeItIs17 just copied the formatting along with it, which is probably why you believed it to be an attempt at impersonation... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If not, there are other ways to {{mention}} another editor rather than copying and posting their signature, and I suggest you learn about them pronto, before someone else interprets your posts as I did this one. General Ization ^Talk 18:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And to address the original issue, no, I have never removed the phrase domestic terror[ist|ism|etc] from either 2019 El Paso shooting or 2019 Dayton shooting in the context of describing the shooter, because it had never, up to the time the editor started agitating for it, been added to either article. WikiBlame: [5], [6] The editor is either confused or trolling (or, most likely based on the above and other contributions, a confused troll). General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and LikeItIs17: Rephrasing that, based on better study of the WikiBlame results: the El Paso article has contained this sentence in the lead as early as 21:23, 04 August 2019: "The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a possible hate crime; however, no charges have been filed." Until the suspect is actually charged with domestic terrorism, or verifiably described by authorities as a domestic terrorist, we will not use the term there. There has never been any similar statement at the Dayton article, and will not be until the same criteria are met. General Ization ^Talk 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: To validate your good instincts, see 184.56.54.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Salo

Go and prove what I did was false about him. He has his own line of Figures from McFarlane.

Stop being salty and deleting stuff. LikeItIs17 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)~~

I do not need to prove that what you added is false. You need to prove it is true. See WP:BURDEN. (@Oshwah:, what do you think? Is enough enough?) General Ization ^Talk 19:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, General Ization. The burden or onus is on the person whose attempting to add the content to the article to support it with reliable sources and show that it complies with all policies if challenged or removed by other editors. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution

I have mentioned you as a participate in a dispute resolution here. Thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I have said comes off as rough. I'm only trying to resolve things amicably for everyone. --Emma (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

2605:6000:1711:C8C6::/64

Range blocked x 3 months with TPA revoked. Thanks for watching my back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Andover High School

Why are you undoing an edit that has a clearly attributable source from the school's own webpage?Jakebed (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jakebed:See the answer already given you at User talk:John from Idegon. The school's own Web page is not a secondary source for information about the school or its alumni. And if you call any other editor a "dillhole" again I will see to it that you are blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That's big of you. But, if you were referring to John from Idegon's comment, it was in reference to a completely different page. So, maybe get your facts straight.Jakebed (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jakebed: Doesn't matter which page it was in reference to; the Wikipedia policy is the same. Maybe learn about policies here before you edit here, and certainly before you insult other editors. The warning stands. General Ization ^Talk 01:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

But since you're really uptight about it, how about I add an article from the Lansing State Journal? https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/entertainment/television/2015/09/14/viewer-fascination-tv-magic-shows-surges/72027306/ Jakebed (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm only going to warn you once more about civility. Read the policy. If the source complies with policy, then it does. If it doesn't it doesn't. You don't need me to vet your sources. General Ization ^Talk 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jakebed: Please dial back the righteous indignation. The LSJ article is what you should have used in your first edit on the subject. Then you wouldn't have had to go to all the trouble of insulting people [7]. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars

My edit is not vandalism. The wording felt usual, sorry. Thanos2556 (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply for removing the link from the phrase: " Hill tribe tourism and trekking " in the Vikipedia term "Chiang Mai" with the reason: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia"

Dear General Ization,

This is a reply for Reply for removing the link I have added to the phrase: " Hill tribe tourism and trekking " in the Vikipedia's article for the term "Chiang Mai", from the reason: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia"

My link is not for advertising or promotion at all. It is a story very relevant to the phrase: " Hill tribe tourism and trekking " in Vikipedia's article for the term "Chiang Mai". It is very infomartive for poeple who are interested to visit the hill tribe in Chiang Mai district, hence it had a lot of added value for the phrase " Hill tribe tourism and trekking ". Could we please add the link back? Thank you http://www.chiangmaieasystay.com/chiangmai-mae-taeng-hill-tribe-adventure-s008 Royi Avr (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No. See instructions on your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 00:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

When "It" is a name, as here, not a preposition, the possessive form is "It's", not "Its"

Nowhere in the novel did "IT" become ITs name. It was ALWAYS a descriptor, an adjective. Even if it had. ITS/ITs is still the correct possessive form. Do some research and get a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJIMMY11811 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@GJIMMY11811: Not going to debate this with you, as it has already been thoroughly debated and consensus established (see the article's Talk page). The change, if made again, will be reverted again, and if you persist you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked. You're up to bat. General Ization ^Talk 01:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inadequate post on my page in wikipedia

I wrote my answer on the inadequate post on my talk page: User_talk:Salamandra85 —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Carrollton Bus Collision explanation

If you will please look at the official NTSB report on page 15, you will see that a 1977 Cadillac Sedan deVille is mentioned in the accident. If we have the 1977 Ford B700/Superior mentioned and the Toyota Pickup (year not mentioned, 1987 btw), why not have the Cadillac mentioned on the page instead of "passenger car" and the car is not even listed on the page, but it was in the accident as an innocent victim (and I was just making the page accurate since I read the report a few days ago)

Just my $.02

TVSRR (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@TVSRR: The issue is not that you mention the Cadillac de Ville, but that you didn't mention it. You linked the words passenger car to the article Cadillac de Ville series. As I explained in my edit summary, this is what we call an Easter egg — the reader who clicks on the link (most likely not a native speaker of English, because who doesn't intuitively know what those two words mean?) will most likely be very surprised to end up at that article. If you want to inform the reader that the car was a Cadillac de Ville, use those words, don't hide them behind a link that one would not reasonably expect to link there (and that should lead to the disambiguation page Passenger car or the article Car, if anywhere). General Ization ^Talk 01:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Heights

Hi General Ization,

Thanks for your notification. I realized i did not put the source for Enes Kanter and Kemba Walker's new height. However, i did retrieved the source from Boston.com with the new height listing. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding of vandalism on their web page

Sorry for the misunderstandin

Lemme know if there's any of thing you want me to fix

Steelcityfan (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Re Marlon James - gay or not

My edit was described as vandalism. When I made the edit I had listened to an extensive interview with the author in which he described himself as one of Jamaica's few openly gay authors. Anyone who deleted my edit - rather than calling it vandalism, could simply have used Google. Her is a link from the Graun in which Mr James homosexuality is discussed. There are many others.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/17/marlon-james-underwent-gay-exorcism-jamaica Rustygecko (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: It doesn't belong on my page. Read and understand our policies concerning verifiability before editing here, and do not accuse others of homophobia, or anything else, before do so. If you make similar accusations again, you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 23:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also: it is not anyone else's responsibility to provide citations for your edit. Read WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Rojava

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello General Ization. You asked for EC protection for this article. The community is very cautious about this protection, and I am not sure that any arb case applies. Have you noticed any sockpuppetry? Or do you think anybody ought to be notified under WP:GS/SCW? Any admin can apply full protection if they think it needed, but that would prevent article development on a current topic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: No, it just seemed to me that given current events the article was ripe for the kind of disruptive editing that was occurring at the time I made the request, and EC seemed to be somewhat more restrictive than semi. I wasn't aware that EC required that there be a history of arbitration concerning the article. I leave it to your judgment, though I think leaving the article unprotected is only asking for trouble. General Ization ^Talk 23:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting, however, that general sanctions already apply to this article. General Ization ^Talk 23:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ECP is not one of the things admins are authorized to do under authority of WP:GS/SCW. Though I notice you recently reported an editor at WP:AN3 who was warring at Rojava, and that continues to be an option. And, by the letter of ECP, an admin could impose semiprotection first, then wait a while, and decide that semiprotection wasn't enough. There would need to be evidence, though. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo

Hello, General.

I noticed that you deleted my contributions to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo's page... It occurred to me that you might not know that that's how we typically style our chiefs here in Nigeria, so I thought that I'd provide a link to an article in which that form is used to refer to him.

[[8]]

I'll wait twenty-four hours to give you an opportunity to verify this by reading the article, then I'll restore the edits.

Kind regards,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: Sorry, no, I don't see this as any different than how we refer to the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. "President" is indeed his correct title, but we don't refer to him (or any US president) in the lede opening as President Donald J. Trump; we refer to him by his name, Donald John Trump. I can show you any number of articles referring to "President Trump", but that doesn't change the way we refer to him in the lede of his Wikipedia article. General Ization ^Talk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the cultural practices of Nigeria may be different than those of the US; this is a question of standard practice here at Wikipedia, not an attempt to impose US cultural practices on a non-US leader.

A better example might be Bernard Francis Law, who, as a cardinal of the Catholic church in the US, was forever and consistently referred to as "Cardinal Law" (or "His Eminence", his honorific title) long after he resigned that position in the church. Nevertheless, we refer to him by name as "Bernard Francis Law" in the opening of the lede. General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Even in the case of Britain's Queen, we refer to her in the opening of the lede as Elizabeth II, not as "Queen Elizabeth" (even though that is how she is consistently referred to by residents of the UK). Unlike the other examples, and as is common with royalty, she has never used her full legal name (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) in any public context. General Ization ^Talk 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... However, what about other people in Britain? Elizabeth II is just that, I grant you, but what about the other members of her family? From Charles, Prince of Wales on down, their titles are used in the introductions. If it is in fact official Wikipedia policy, then shouldn't it apply to everyone that holds an aristocratic title of some kind? Sir Elton John is referred to as Sir Elton Hercules John CBE in his introduction, for example.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: See MOS:HONORIFIC, WP:OBE and WP:NCROY. General Ization ^Talk 17:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Charles' article refers to him in the lede as Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, even though that is how he is commonly described in and outside of the UK. Again, the common name is what appears first in the lede sentence, not the royal or honorific title. General Ization ^Talk 17:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for those links. They were very helpful. I now refer you to the last one, [[9]]. Seeing as how Chief Obasanjo would rank below a monarch in our system, I will try to find an approximate analogue from Britain. In the section about baronets, it says that honorific titles are not to be used in page titles except for purposes of disambiguation (which I wasn't attempting to do with the chief's). Full titles (comprised of both prefixes and suffixes) ARE supposed to be used in the first sentences of the articles themselves, however (which is what I was trying to do. I started with Chief-----GCFR, Ph.D). The same would hold true of knights and dames, I think. That's why my reference to Sir Elton John earlier was appropriate.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Baronetcy is the conveyance of a hereditary title bestowed by the Crown. It is unclear to me from the article what event resulted in Obasanjo being able to use the honorific Chief[tain], or when it occurred, but it does not appear to be a hereditary title, nor an honor bestowed by a monarch (as in the typical use in the UK of Sir or Lady). I'm not sure it makes sense to draw a parallel between Obasanjo's style and that of a baronet. Was the event simply his accession to the presidency of Nigeria in 1976? General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't tied to the presidency... It's derived from the chieftaincy titles that he received in Egbaland, the Nigerian traditional state that he's from. They are both within the gift of the Alake of Egbaland, a monarch whose kingdom is one of several that are legally recognized here. That's why I keep referring to him as an aristocrat as opposed to a politician.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: OK, point taken. It clearly doesn't fit neatly into our existing guidance, but I can see how you are interpreting the baronet example. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. I won't revert your edit again if you choose to make it. General Ization ^Talk 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing me the courtesy of discussing it with me. Have a nice day.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Gender Binary

“Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gender binary, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.”

I just took another look at gender binary, and it is teeming with unsourced edits. It seems amiss that the only thing you took exception to was the common knowledge statement that Males have XY Chromosomes and Females have XX Chromosomes, when you know that the largest problem with attribution is choosing one of the 8 1/2 million sources to use. With regards to the statements which have no attributions and fall far short of common-knowlege, there seems to be an acceptance of unsourced edits depending on the relative popularity of the positions within the community. Unfortunately, biased moderation often equals or exceeds biased edits, and in my opinion, it is arguably Wikipedia’s biggest shortcoming. People’s bias is typically inverse to the perception of one’s bias, and humans simply cannot moderate in an unbiased manner. I find the referenced article proof of this paradigm. It’s often the case that popular-yet-encyclopedicly-questionable edits receive no scrutiny, while common-sensically-yet-unpopular edits are asked to source the word ‘the’ (I’m exaggerating, but you get the point). Thank you for your time. Opie8 (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Opie8: Your edit was unsourced. See WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. Your addition of yet another unsourced statement cannot be justified by the presence of unsourced statements. The warning stands. General Ization ^Talk 12:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure fair enough, I’m not asking you to revert it. I accept the decision. I’m only making the observation that it was unequally applied, and pointing out that selective enforcement of any given rule inevitably leads to bias that can be as detrimental to the article as any specific infraction. Especially when one selectively picks out one infraction in a veritable sea of such. Yes, the position that it is nonetheless an infraction is taken, and I don’t request that it not stand. My point also stands, though. Best of luck to you. Opie8 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ramy Khodeir Page

Hello, General Ization. I want to talk to you about the page Ramy Khodeir I created. I've used citations from IMDb, ORCID, Google Scholar etc. There are also interviews and news articles on Ramy Khodeir which I believe that this page may be improved. May I ask why Ramy Khodeir was requested for deletion? Hopefully we can solve this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmiller02 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at the notice at the top of the page. General Ization ^Talk 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Revert on Jackie

Why did you erase my addition on the cover art? I was a 68 IP back then before this one was assigned to the interface. It wasn't done in bad faith by saving your descriptor of "We can see that. It doesn't have to belong in an article." I think you have done it by accident. Please restore it under Background.

Night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never edited the article Jackie. You're barking up the wrong tree. General Ization ^Talk 02:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently you're referring to this edit from more than four years ago (!) at Jackie (Ciara album). As I stated then, there was no need to describe the contents of the cover in that paragraph, which had to do with her hiatus from releasing albums, especially when the album cover art appears in the infobox making your description unnecessary. The reversion was not an accident and will not be reversed, for a variety of reasons but mostly because your objection is not timely; there have been nearly 200 edits to the article in the mean time. General Ization ^Talk 02:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Mexican standoff on TV

I found that you have deleted my edit on the Mexican Standoff article about the instance it appears on The Big Bang Theory, and they check it on Wikipedia itself. "In the popular comedy TV series The Big Bang Theory, in episode six of season nine Sheldon Cooper compares his position at the Helium scene as a Mexican standoff which Leonard later checks on Wikipedia." therefore, should be in the article as that's the norm in any other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indike001 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not interested in discussing edits from four years ago with you. You can bring it up on the Talk page of the article. General Ization ^Talk 12:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

My opinion four years ago was that your edit was unsourced trivia, and it hasn't changed. Also, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. General Ization ^Talk 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For repeatedly reverting a determine IP vandal.  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) @ 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

About so-called "unconstructive edits" on the "Paulie Pennino" article

I received a notification about a new message on my "talk page", but strangely that message no longer appears there, as it was removed by yourself two minutes later...
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paulie Pennino. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization Talk 03:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)"
Can you please explain in what way(s) this edit can be considered "unconstructive", or even "constitute vandalism" ? Did you actually read the changes in question before you decided that they "appear" to constitute vandalism ? I happen to have watched the six Rocky movies over the course of a few days before I made that edit, and also edited related articles on "Mickey Goldmill", "Apollo Creed", and "Adrian Pennino". What I added here is both factually true (actual quotes from the movies) and definitely relevant to portray the conflicted relationship between Rocky and Paulie (that moment where Rocky finally tells Paulie that he is a "jealous, lazy bum" is particularly important in that regard). Also it is not true that Paulie "invited Rocky to begin his unique training method of punching sides of beef" – Rocky did it on his own initiative, after he saw Paulie punch a beef haphazadly out of frustration while insulting him ("It stinks in here! And you stink!"). But I begin to feel like, on Wikipedia, representing the truth is not a priority so much as to compile consensual misconceptions.--Abolibibelot (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

When you receive a warning message on your Talk page and it is subsequently removed by the same editor, you can usually assume that that is because the editor or admin leaving the message reconsidered the warning. The reconsideration doesn't mean that the editor agrees that the edit was an improvement, only that they decided the nature of the edit didn't require a warning. Such was the case here. You are obviously much more invested in those changes than I was in reverting them, and I'm not interested in debating their value with you further, especially as the issue occurred two weeks ago. General Ization ^Talk 15:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

While I understand that you have no particular mandate to treat people with respect, and can do as you please, I wish you would reconsider the rudeness with which you display at times. As you’re probably aware, there is a somewhat-common theory that moderation attracts certain personality types for whom empathy is in rather short supply. This plus even minor amounts of power seems to provoke a certain hostility. The Stamford Prison Experiment is interesting read for a more extreme example. Was it really not possible to understand the confusion and worry this person may have felt at being accused of a transgression they had no intention of making? Clearly your actions indicate that it’s a potentially borderline issue, and the op is concerned about that. And while you may dedicate much of your time to the task, other volunteers contribute more sporadically. Two weeks is a common vacation length. Or perhaps they changed jobs, witnessed the births their child, or had some life event to attend to. To have no interest in a discussion because a contributor made the cardinal sin of having a life seems to be a contravention of good-faith. There should be a high bar to having ‘no interest’ in discussion one’s good-faith concerns. People will tolerate a great deal of rudeness from their employers, but these people are volunteers. Trolls, vandals, and bad actors never give up, but those with good intentions will direct their efforts elsewhere if they feel that their efforts, even if they make mistakes, are not being appreciated. Participating in Wikipedia can be intimidating, and the first interaction one has with a moderator can determine whether one sticks with it and learns the ropes, or decides that being insulted is not how they want to spend their free time. Please, if you can, try to exercise the power that you have with a bit more humility and understanding. Feel free to take me over the coals, but when you’re done, maybe give just a little bit of thought to what I’ve said. Opie8 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. My expressing "no interest" in debating about the content in question was a simple fact, having already explained to the OP the reason for the reversion and for the subsequent removal of a warning from their Talk page. You apparently perceived an expression of hostility where there was none; just a simple, business-like explanation and an indication that I was not inclined to spend more time on the issue (and I am still not). General Ization ^Talk 21:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Jumping the gun

• [10] 02:45 -- Posted report to edit warring notice board.
• [11] 02:46 -- Fixed typo in report (could not notify the user until the title was correct).
• [12] 02:47 -- Notified editor.
• [13] 02:48 -- "Were you planning to notify the editor of your report here? You have not yet done so."
• [14] 02:49 -- Self revert.

I notified the user one minute after posting the report. You asked me if I was planning on notifying two or three minutes after the report and one minute after the notification.

That's a bit hasty, wouldn't you say? Might I gently suggest giving people a few minutes to compose a post and check it for errors? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Mask: I pledge allegiance to the The Mask.

https://www.darkhorse.com/Comics/3005-140/The-Mask-I-Pledge-Allegiance-to-the-Mask-1

It is confirmed that the Mask got a new series Called The Mask: I pledge allegiance to the Mask.--2601:403:4280:E170:80A2:7A26:4CDA:C79C (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey bruv

Hey bruv, you marked my changes as not including citation however you reverted the changes to others that did not have citations either. Be fair and at least take that incorrect information away please

bruv 192.46.52.2 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)