User talk:General Ization/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The article clearly mentions he does not eat meat but orders salmon. Isn't that the definition of a pescetarian? DiagramBeFun (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@

biographical articles based on such flimsy evidence. General Ization ^Talk

15:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A bit harsh, but fair enough. Let's leave it at that. DiagramBeFun (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

um.

vandal (n.) Look up vandal at Dictionary.com 1660s, "willful destroyer of what is beautiful or venerable,"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vandal&allowed_in_frame=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayhomegal (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@

blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk

18:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mickey%27s+Signature&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMq9DE_KzTAhVs5oMKHaTLBWkQsAQIKw&biw=1366&bih=662

for this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse

Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello General Ization can you please Help me add Mickey's Signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not today, no, due to

real world commitments. General Ization ^Talk

15:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi if Columbia is not a Law School Why is it on the list and Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to Columbia University not the Law School.look at her Bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The degree that Gorsuch received was not a degree from the Columbia Law School. Gorsuch graduated cum laude from Columbia College, an undergraduate school, in three years with a bachelor of arts in political science.[4]. Columbia College is not a law school. Columbia College is also not Columbia Law School, which is a graduate school. They are different schools within the Columbia University system. General Ization ^Talk 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dude Come on please Gorsuch went to Columbia Law School!! Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

IP, Ginsburg earned an

LLB degree from Columbia Law School, which is a graduate school which is a part of the Columbia University system. Therefore, she belongs on the list in the section for Columbia Law School alumni. Gorsuch earned his BA, which is an undergraduate degree, from Columbia College, which is also part of the Columbia University system but is not a law school and does not award law degrees. Therefore he does not belong on the list in the section for Columbia Law School alumni. General Ization ^Talk

21:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi General Ization can you please add oxford law school to the List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch eand an (DPhil) from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Please post a request at

Talk:List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices. General Ization ^Talk

20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Seventh Amendment provides the right to jury trial only in civil cases, and Ballew v. Georgia is about criminal juries. It's a Sixth Amendment case, not a Seventh Amendment one. Harry1835 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. This edit was not made in mistake. If the article is going to be written in such a style whereby Murray is referred to as British, then I suggest articles such as Fred Perry, David Beckham and David Bowie are also changed to such a style. Having each individual described as the country the come from within the UK is more accurate, I believe. 2A02:C7D:4EEA:2A00:C11C:EB63:C704:BDE8 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

See the article's Talk page for the

consensus established earlier this year on this question. Your edit was at odds with that consensus; if you want to start a new discussion on the article's Talk page, please do, but do not change this against consensus unless and until a new consensus is established. General Ization ^Talk

14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment pointing me to MoS:LQ. I did not know that. I dislike that style intensely personally, but now that I know I'll watch out for it on Wikipedia and do my best to stick by it. 207.30.77.162 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm the daughter of Eugene Vaughn, the captain that is cited in Pan Am flight 841. I should know better than ANYONE who in our family became airline pilots. Whoever wrote this said that both of his sons are airline pilots...INCORRECT! He does have 2 sons but only ONE of the sons became an airline pilot. I am his daughter and I became an airline pilot as well. So it's a son and daughter, not two sons!!!! It's insulting to me to not be properly noted in this article. What the heck do I need to do to get this changed to reflect the correct information!!!! HELP! The reference that reflected the wrong information was based on an article I submitted to a Pan Am documentary. That article was also apparently edited and even spelled my last name incorrectly so the reference has issues. Bottom line, he has a son and a daughter that became airline pilots....NOT two sons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by F9busflyer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Verifiability. If you can provide another reliable, published source that confirms your claim, or Mr. Mills updates/corrects the information on his site which is currently cited in the article, then (and only then) can we change it. General Ization ^Talk

01:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What's ironic is that the reference used that showed the error was originally written by me and then edited after the fact with incorrect information. I sent a message to that web page to get the corrections made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F9busflyer (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please drop me a note if/when you hear back from Mr. Mills that the site will be updated. General Ization ^Talk 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for denying someone's request for defamatory content. Yoshimi82 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi General Ization, I just wanted to let you know the background on Informant16's removal of material at Bernie Sanders. Ironically, it was material that he contributed. When he started to add to it, two editors (I was one) suggested waiting to accumulate enough material to summarize, rather than accrete new bulletins in the topic matter. Unfortunately, the editor took offense and removed the material, which has been restored twice, now. This is all visible at Talk:Bernie Sanders. It's hard to judge the balance between encouragement and advice in a case like this. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I read your comments at Talk:Bernie Sanders earlier today. General Ization ^Talk 13:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think you should withdraw this, per the explanation I gave there. I have quite a bit of experience with Jan. and PF's comments just don't have anything like the same feel.

btw, I hope you don't mind that I "borrowed" the big red notice from your talk page, for my talk page editnotice! Jeh (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You're more than welcome! General Ization ^Talk 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I added the content I removed and chose to take it down once it was claimed that it was too much on a particular subject on the Bernie Sanders article. You accuse me of edit warring because two people decided that the one sentence I added that was removed was too much thanks to what was already there on the subject, leading me to remove all of what I'd written regarding it, and then they break their own logic by reposting it repeatedly after saying that it was too much and making the page a source of news bulletins. - Informant16 April 19, 2017

@

edit war (which see defined at that link); you appear now to have stopped the war, and are now engaged in a discussion, which is the appropriate way to handle the issue. Case closed. General Ization ^Talk

00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So because you refuse to explain why you decided to put in place text that was agreed upon, during "a discussion", as giving too much coverage but disagreed in how to be handled, then you redirect me to talk to someone else? - Informant16 April 19, 2017

@Informant16: I note that you received similar warnings in March, June and July of last year, so you really should take the time to read the policy and follow it. Note in particular the advice that "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." General Ization ^Talk 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@

consensus about the content, not me. General Ization ^Talk

00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That defense was never stated by me. I was going off the seeming consensus that the material was adding too much. I'd note those warnings from last year as well, though that would lead me in the direction of throwing in the towel on here altogether. Informant16 April 19, 2017

@Informant16: Read the policy carefully, please. Your violation was technical, probably not intentful, but was a violation nonethless. If you think the policy is unfair, you are free to not edit, but not free to violate it. Exercise more care and start discussing your disagreements/conflicts (or different understandings of the current consensus) with other editors prior to reverting the same content multiple times and you'll have no problem. General Ization ^Talk 00:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Informant16: Also, please note that Bernie Sanders is subject to Active Arbitration Remedies (see the top of the Talk page), which includes the special policy that there is a "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)." This means that your two reverts on April 13 could have and probably should have resulted in sanctions against you. Again, the case is closed, assuming you will respect these policies going forward. General Ization ^Talk 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions lots of conspiracy theories about democrats, but refuses to call anything semi-recent against republicans a conspiracy theory, even when it meets the same criteria as other things which are included. That is not

@ConservativeTrumpism: Bring it up on the article's Talk page. A "theory" that is currently under federal investigation is, at this point, more than just a theory and does not belong on a List of conspiracy theories. General Ization ^Talk 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary: (No, this edit adds a "See also" wikilink for a conspiracy theory which has been neither proven or disproven, much like the others featured here. I'll also be writing a section in the article for it when I get a chance. It's no less neutral than the rest)

@ConservativeTrumpism: No, sorry. "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. In January 2017, a U.S. intelligence community assessment expressed 'high confidence' that Russia favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an 'influence campaign' to harm Clinton's electoral chances. Intelligence allies of the U.S. in Europe found communications between suspected Russian agents and the Trump campaign as early as 2015." An article with that lead does not describe something that can be termed a "conspiracy theory", and including it among the See also items is an obvious implication that it can and should. General Ization ^Talk 21:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So, any theories that accuse Democrats of some conspiracy, and are neither proven nor disproven, are labeled "conspiracy theories", but when it's the other party you think it's a NPOV violation??????? ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See above. General Ization ^Talk 21:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And the more recent conclusion of the intelligence community is that Donald Trump was not collaborating with Russia to release the information, nor was he communicating with anyone who he was aware was a Russian agent. Stop trying to make it look like Trump engineered this thing. Discussion is ongoing on talk page for the page I tried to link. ConservativeTrumpism (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@ConservativeTrumpism: Your edit has been challenged. You need to bring up the change you propose to make to List of conspiracy theories at Talk:List of conspiracy theories for discussion. The discussion at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections addresses the changes you propose to that article, not the edits I have challenged. General Ization ^Talk 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Initially, I made an edit to

WP:AIN. ConservativeTrumpism (talk

) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk

02:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

About that user I alerted, that you "thanked" me for: I'll eat my admintools if that's a new editor, so I expect they already know all about discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Agreed. General Ization ^Talk 15:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! You said on

@Jamesjpk: Breaking the link to the Talk page after the move would have been unconstructive, and if you were a new editor who didn't understand redirects or the effects of breaking them it would have been important to let you know that. I templated you initially based on what I perceived as a low edit count so possibly lack of understanding, but, after I reviewed your editing history and gathered it was just an error, you'll note that I removed the template from your Talk page (before you posted here). General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up! Have a nice day! Jamesjpk (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

AGF? Naw, just points for when I accused of not. ;o) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked out your edit count after I reverted your edit with that summary and decided that probably wasn't too bright on my part; you probably knew what you were doing. . General Ization ^Talk 05:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I just wp:huggle. I can't keep policy straight in my head. Do it one way or another and somebody's upset. Please feel free to revert me anytime. (adding) all the IPs revert me, at least for awhile... Do I sound cynical? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ontario is a unilingual province. The PC's have never ran under a French name, even regionally.Charles lindberg (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I know you're American, but please do some actual research before editing incorrectly. Only New Brunswick is bilingual. Every other province is English except Quebec which is French-speaking. Charles lindberg (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@

stereotyping any editor based on their nationality. It's actually possible to do the research and come up with an erroneous answer, as apparently I did. General Ization ^Talk

22:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You did no research, be better. Charles lindberg (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Charles lindberg: OK, how's this: "Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec allow for both English and French to be spoken in the provincial legislatures, and laws are enacted in both languages. In Ontario, French has some legal status, but is not fully co-official." Doesn't sound too unilingual to me. General Ization ^Talk 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, French is a regionally recognized language is Ontario, Manitoba, and many Maritime municipalities. So is about 50 different First Nations languages. The official language of Ontario is English. See www.ontario.ca/page/about-ontario

And then there's that pesky French Language Services Act, serving 4.1 percent of the population identified as Franco-Ontarians in 2006. My point being that you grossly oversimplify when you describe Ontario as "unilingual", even if the PC's don't use a French name. But thanks anyway. General Ization ^Talk 22:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please do check the content in the edit you flagged, because nothing was blanked, simply re-ordered; Germany and Francke are listed higher-up in the article, so no need to repeat. I shall undo your deconstructive edit now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.254.80.166 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect; you removed more than 1k of content pertaining to shares of EU-India trade, and the original location was fine. Do it again and you will be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews are an

@Asarelah: I appreciate and respect your perspective, but that does not mean your perspective should be adopted within the encyclopedia. Where an article does not describe its subject as a "Jewish Hungarian poet", as at Miklós Radnóti which describes him as a "Hungarian poet", and the article indicates that he adopted another faith in life, his entry on various lists or disambiguation pages should not describe him as Jewish. Further, as I pointed out, your summary saying that the basis for adding the Jewish descriptor is that he died in the Holocaust is clearly misleading and readily misunderstood, as many Christians and adherents of other (or no) faiths died in the Holocaust, some very possibly for reasons other than their faith add: or ethnicity (sexual orientation, collaboration, etc). I urge you to reconsider your apparent task of changing articles to "classify" anyone of Jewish heritage who died in the Holocaust as Jewish. Frankly, I am unlikely to continue reverting your edits this morning, but that is only because I have real life matters to attend to. Another editor may well do. General Ization ^Talk 13:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Most articles that mention people of Jewish faith or ethnicity only describe them as such in the intro unless the person was a Rabbi or something. This is generally limited to the "personal life" or "personal background" sections. These people were targeted for no other reason than their ethnic background. I can assure that I am well aware Holocaust victims were targeted for reasons other than being ethnically Jewish (as I said, I've been learning about this my since I was a child), but when a Holocaust victim is killed for no other reason than being ethnically Jewish, it becomes highly relevant as it is a defining feature in their lives, and ignoring that constitutes erasure. I will have to take this matter to the appropriate page for other users to offer input and settle this issue. Asarelah (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not what we do here. General Ization ^Talk

14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we know who this IP user is? I'm guessing they are already blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: See Cebr1979. General Ization ^Talk 13:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I just couldn't remember the name. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I know 12/31/1900 is the last year of the 19th century, but Violet can't have it on her page because when either her or another women born in 1900 dies, we can't say their the last ones born in the 19th century, only one can have it. So if violet dies, the survivor should be given that statement of being the last alive in the 19th century. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015 Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@

consensus for the removal of the content. General Ization ^Talk

21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The material I edited onto Floyd McKissick Jrs page is not false or defamatory. It is actions that the public should be aware of. He is an elected official and attorney at law in Durham, NC. The people have the right to know that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowyourlawyer (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@

citation of a reliable source for the claims made. General Ization ^Talk

I did provide a citation on my edit. I clearly referenced http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/floyd-mckissick-jr-disciplined-by-nc-bar/Content?oid=1191697 The Indy Week is a local new organization here in the Raleigh, Cary, Durham, and Chapel HIll area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowyourlawyer (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Knowyourlawyer: Since the source says that McKissick was acquitted in the 1995 and 2001 cases, stating what his ex-wife claimed or former employee claimed without including the information that he was acquitted in both cases is defamatory (and the discredited claims are irrelevant to the article). General Ization ^Talk 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Though you state that I am in an edit war, the truth is that I have posted on the talk page of the article that I edited. Yet, no one has added to the talk despite this. Due to this, I am simply reverted the previous edit back to what I had put it, which fits the format that the list has been going with for at least a year. I do not mean to be in a war, and would like to have a discussion on the talk page, however, if no one adds to it, that is not possible. Tapper930 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@

blocked for edit warring or at the least disruptive editing. General Ization ^Talk

01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Though I was the one to remove a single piece of their edit, I was not the one to start the edit war, as I was not the one to be the first to revert. I also simply was following the standard that has been set with how the shows have been placed on the list. The other user was able to see that the talk page had been started-as seen by their edit times and the fact that I had sent a message-but had refused to respond to the message or post. Thus, I figure, as I did not start the war and simply set the list as it has been for the listed time, my edit does not have to be removed.Tapper930 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:EW again. You cannot assume that the other editor saw your Talk page comments or has had a chance to respond (believe it or not, they may have other things to do here and/or very limited time available to edit, and the discussion you have initiated may not be their first priority), and more importantly you cannot assume that this entitles you to once again remove the content. Your assumptions will not serve you well if you continue to edit disruptively. General Ization ^Talk

02:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well my sources were books I've read over the years and like I said the recent hln broadcast in march 2017. Go ahead and delete what I added the article was full of inaccuracies and could be elaborated on. I think you should have given me a chance to defend the truthful content I added or corrected before u put it back to its original state but whatever dont bother me. I will never edit another wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffdimerandy (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@

verifiability. Your recollections from books you have read over the years are not verifiable. It is your choice whether or not to edit, but if you do so please follow Wikipedia policies. General Ization ^Talk

01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I've been on wikipedia along as you have and didnt think people got so much in an uproar over editing an article. How do you know I wasn't adding my sources before u deleted everything I wrote. I wrote the truth and made the article believable now its back to its very flawed self. Whatever doesn't bother me I just typed for nothing that's all that I lost. I certainly am not going to sob over this. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffdimerandy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@

Nothing is ever "lost" on Wikipedia. Please always sign your comments on any Wikipedia Talk page. General Ization ^Talk

01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I find the 1st paragraph flawed as it says today Mexico sees him as a national hero and that he fought for Mexico. However he sold out Mexico for gold twice and so directly made Mexico lose Texas and several times was involved in revolutions against Mexico. I don't see this mentioned there. Also Mexico doesn't see him as a national hero. At least one time I checked 46.135.20.20 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)46.135.20.20

Discuss your views and suggestions for improvement of the article on the article's Talk page, not on my Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 18:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was unsourced personal commentary. See

original research. General Ization ^Talk

18:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanna say I'm sorry for what I did at First Lady of the United States. I only did it as a joke and did not notice it got way out of hand. It will never happen again. I did not know that was vandalism despite being a joke. But question, how long will a user be blocked from editing?

The revenue and net income in the article are erroneous. Can you solve it?.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Elon Musk, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Elon Musk explains his basis for calling himself a "practical" engineer at the cited source you removed. The article does not claim he has an engineering degree. Please review WP:NPOV. General Ization Talk 22:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Please note that I have stated reason for text editing in the Summary. 2) With that in mind, my goal was to make Wikipedia article accurate. There are no self-made "doctors" or "engineers". Those titles can only be earned after completing proper university studies. How is defined "practical doctor" or "practical engineer"? Why is then the title used without "practical" word in the article? 3) According to your comment, that means if somebody is calling himself "practical USA President" and there is any published reference/source about this, in the Wikipedia article shall be stated that he is the "President of the United States". It is irrelevant how somebody is calling himself. Important are facts. 4) In the article about Elon Musk, encyclopedia Britannica does not state that he is an engineer. But my comment here does not have anything to do with Elon Musk. The article about Elon Musk is just a good example how Wikipedia article can be inaccurate. This then rises a question, how can anybody can use Wikipedia as a reference, when something so obvious is inaccurate. 5) Please then modify text "engineer" to "self proclaimed engineer". This is in line with your comment that Mr. Musk is calling himself a practical engineer. 6) It is even better establish some rules about use of professional titles in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.175.241 (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be the case that Candlelight vigil is US, Candlelit vigil is UK (and more grammatically correct he notes, trying not to sound too smug). I can't work out which Engvar is used at

Hi I was just updating the Wikipedia page for Mia Dearden speedy as there is an alternate variation of the character's costume in the Injustice 2 videogame. Eobard Zolomon (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Daniel Padilla Puchicatos (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I got my General's mixed up :-) My apologies. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. Happens all the time. We've even been accused of being socks of each other. General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Do the socks have two, three or four stars on them. HeeHee. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: See also alternate account User:NestorLozanoCatalan. General Ization ^Talk 01:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2017.

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

Seriously you've made a mistake, the last edit was to a none warring section of the The Crystal Maze article while we wait for GUtt01 to search out a third party to see whose wording of the section is better.79.75.0.42 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a sentence scarin' off vandalisms and you say I'm vandalizing? How? --A the wikier (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@

blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk

23:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So does that mean that "You can really edit this page" is a bait? (Obviously I wouldn't edit someone else's userpage but still it said so?) Alright I admit and I won't do it again. --A the wikier (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Then why does it have an edit button on it for users other than who's page it is? The snare (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm vandalizing? Put information with source makes me a vandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.207.67 (talk)

No, evading your previous blocks does. General Ization ^Talk 00:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

How come Duel is considered excessive detail but Trimpers isn't. --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to do you a favour by trimming excess detail but that got reverted, but if you add detail in Duel. That's a bad thing. Explain? --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Already explained at User talk:MarnetteD. If you spent half as much time actually paying attention to what others tell you as you have invested in disruptive editing, you'd know what other editors have been trying to tell you. Since you are apparently unable or disinclined to do that, it's time for a timeout. General Ization ^Talk 13:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duel_-_The_Haunted_House_Strikes_Back! Where on the talk page has there been a consensus justifying the large page blanking on the ride experience section? --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Before I go, go and ask Woomballio if he did or didn't start off with the highly detailed Duel (ride) edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woombamillio --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

He even deleted this section "I have started some very in-depth writing on the ride experience for both the Haunted House and Duel, basically using my extensive knowledge of the ride. If anybody has any more information to add then go ahead, it would be nice to cover everything. My sources come from the website Haunted One, which is a very reliable site that holds lots of archive information and research. However, it does get rather opinionated every now and then, which I have stayed clear of. I have not simply copied its information either. I am aiming to match Disneyland's Haunted Mansion Wikipedia page, although not as much detail since the ride is not as well known or historical. It should be a significant improvment on the two or three sentences that were on this page before. Woombamillio (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)" --2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Its not coherent enough. --2.125.87.21 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There has been vandalism in her page. Every time ​ I search Mikasa Ackerman false information pops up and I would try to fix it myself but I don't know how. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdsdfgiofr (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

None of the information that was changed or introduced was incorrect.

"The victims were later collectively known as "The Charleston Nine"." I changed that to reflect the correct name, "The Emanuel Nine". "The Charleston Nine" are the firefighters that lost their lives 10 years ago. BLS12 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@BLS12: And you removed the existing citation that described the shooting victims as the "Charleston Nine", providing no new citation for "Emanuel Nine"; and failed to cite your claim that the firefighters were referred to by that name. Please see WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 19:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@BLS12: The fact is that the shooting victims were referred to at various times in various publications by both names. I have restored the original name and citation along with the ones you added. Please do not restore the claim concerning the firefighters without citing a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)