If I have nominated your article for deletion, removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

WP:N (General Notability) WP:BIO (Person Notability) WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability) WP:WEB (Web Content Notability) WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons policies)

WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability) WP:V (Verifiability) WP:RS (Reliable Sources) WP:COPY (Copyright)

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

If you can't be bothered to do any of this, please do not post on my page.

Please read Koala's edit summaries before you slap me with a warning. I explained my edit, he reverted with no summary, and then told me to "go home your [sic] drunk". I should be able to stand my ground in such situations. Please advise, thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EauZenCashHaveIt: I read the other editor's summary, and if you'll take the time yourself to read their Talk page, you'll see that I addressed the issue with them. An uncivil edit summary, however, isn't a license to edit war, and your reasserting the edit doesn't "punish" another editor for their misdeeds; it just escalates the situation over a trivial edit that is hardly worth getting yourself blocked. The warning stands; ignore it at your own risk. General Ization ^Talk 00:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaterialScientist blocked the above user for altering release dates for a large number of 1980s singles – while I completely agree with the block as his/her edits were unsourced, I just wanted to point out that his/her dates are very likely correct, at least for the British singles, as Friday was the standard release day for singles and albums in the UK back in the early 1980s. But obviously without any references, it's impossible to prove any of the changes, so I agree that the original dates should be left until we can definiively say otherwise. I may go to the British Library and try and check out some of these release dates in the music magazines of the time. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were unsourced, no edit summaries were provided, and both the volume and the rate of the changes were highly suspect, on the order of one every 15 to 20 seconds. In addition, many of the singles whose articles were being "corrected" were singles initially released in the US – so if the IP was changing to the nearest Friday based on this convention, the edits may or may not have been correct. (I do note they were changing dates to dmy format, whether or not appropriate for a given article, so your theory sounds plausible.) General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message for not editing disruptively anymore and I will keep it in my mind. But can you tell me why you gave me the second and "Final Warning" before I even see the first warning and comply to your request ?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezyjoon (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bezyjoon: I cannot tell what you have seen or not seen. I can only see that you repeated the same disruptive edits even after the first warning was left and the edits were reverted with an explanatory edit summary. It's your responsibility to read messages left on your Talk page promptly, and to pay attention to the information in the edit summary if and when someone reverts your change. General Ization ^Talk 00:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should be more respectful to other contributor's right !! and you are not supposed to take advantage of your position !! You gave me warning and I complied with it as soon as I saw it, but You gave me the second warning in LESS THAN ONE MINUTES !! Is that the policy of Wikipedia that you are allowed to give someone the second and final warning in less than a minute, even without give him enough time to read the first one ?!?!? SERIOUSLY ??? I am so disappointed with wikipedia with your unrespectful behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezyjoon (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bezyjoon: Today, on Jerry Garcia alone, you made a total of 10 edits that were disruptive, including three reversions of other editors' reversions of your disruptive edits, all before the last two warnings you received. Given that you have not yet been blocked, I would not push my luck if I was you. General Ization ^Talk 00:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was an IP messing around on talk pages and adding random and at times ridiculous wikilinks to articles. I was going to delete it but you replied - if you want to delete it all, feel free. Doug Weller (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber not actor. He never really acted in a movie. In Behaving Badly it makes figuration for 2 seconds and Zoolander 2 will it makes himself. In the series Punk'd he also participated as himself and in Cubed he also does so figuration. Actors and singers are eg Justin Timberlake who has made 17 films still having plans to record other, Jamie Foxx made 33 films and won the best actor Oscar in 2004. If so everyone would be actor and singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equipe W (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to compare the accomplishments of people who act to determine if they are actors or not. There are many actors who have appeared in only one work (stage or screen) and have won no awards – they are nevertheless actors. Bieber's acting may not be what has made him notable, but it is among his occupations. You seem to be confusing the term actor with movie star, one of which I would certainly agree that Bieber is not. Do not remove the content again. General Ization ^Talk 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So using your logic Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Watson are singers. Jennifer recorded a song The Hanging Tree and Emma has recorded Fimes singing like The Perks of Being a Wallflower and Beauty and the Beast. I think the real problem is that I'm dealing with a Belieber--Equipe W (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Equipe W: First, read WP:CIVILITY. I think the real problem is that you have contributed 30 edits on Wikipedia in four months and I've contributed 30,000 in nine and half years. I don't mean to be rude, but spend a little time learning how things work around here before you engage in arguments with other editors about encyclopedic content. And yes, that's correct. They are indeed singers. They are not recording artists. 01:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)General Ization ^Talk

I actually work at wikipedia the years the account is new--Equipe W (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Surprising, then, that you are as unfamiliar with the principles we use here (as well as procedures, such as signing your edits on Talk pages) as you apparently are. My suggestion stands. Please stop trolling my page. General Ization ^Talk 01:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to drop on by and let you know that I quite like your username. Cheers, —  dainomite   21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were you unhappy with the work of the archive bot at WP:AN3? It might have been helpful if you had left an edit summary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Nope, not at all. I don't recall the edit; it must have been an errant click. Apologies to you and to the 'bot. General Ization ^Talk 03:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I even had to double-check that I didn't have an imposter, but sure enough, there it is in my contributions. No explanation at all to offer. General Ization ^Talk 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to find out exactly why I should be nominated as I am just trying to provide correct information. I was nominated in regards to writing that Sam and Dan Houser are both Americans. They are Americans. It says so in the page below, so I mentioned it at the top too. Where they were born should not be the only identifier. Plenty of people for instance are born in another country, but live out their lives elsewhere and feel they are of this nationality or that. Either way, on a technicality they are still Americans. 58.107.118.7 (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@58.107.118.7: I have updated the article on Sam Houser to properly indicate that he is English American and has American citizenship. I see no evidence to support the same or any similar change for Dan Houser. General Ization ^Talk 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello General Ization. I am just letting you know that I deleted Sosyallift, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi General Ization. A quick note: just because an article isn't in English - in this case it was in Turkish - isn't a reason for speedy deletion. You might like to see Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a little dramatic to remove every review from the section. I think we should keep at least one well written paragraph. Koala15 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mossadegh was never "democratically elected" Prime Minister. Iran has never been a democracy at any point in its history. He was appointed by The Shah. This is common knowledge.

Kindly delete the verbage about The Shah or his reign as monarch in manner that is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfIran (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SonOfIran: I will do no such thing. Both the statement you removed and the statement you attempted to negate are reliably sourced. I will not remove them merely because you disagree with them, and if you attempt to do so again your edits will again be reverted. You are free to bring up your concerns on the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 00:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your astonishing work at Seth Rollins, I'm proud to present to you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! Thanks again for your tireless efforts to keep Wikipedia clean of vandalism. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC regarding the article Jimi Hendrix? It is about whether "acid rock" belongs in the infobox or not. Dan56 (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help reverting vandalism. It's very much appreciated! GAB (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madw my citation and it is correct information. Cthornley85 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see my post was ok. Just got revised a little which is totally fine. Good job! :) Cthornley85 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not normally undo a fellow vandal patroller, but in the case of the apocalyptic dates, the source clearly specifies 2060 and not 2015. I'd rather talk than revert on this one, but the source is plain. Why are you seeing things differently, what am I missing? Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 19:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See your Talk page. Unintended, no issue at all with your edit. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your revert of an edit on Shin-Soo Choo. While I personally have no problem with hitting for the cycle being in the infobox it does appear that Lmeade10 may have a point when it comes to standardizing all articles to not include that information in the infobox as a career highlight (per the current style suggestions, based on WP:Baseball consensus). If in fact there is an opposing view should we take it up in WP:Baseball? This user has changed over 100 articles this way, so if we all have a consensus to include it we should make them aware, and change the others back as well! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm confused...is this user putting them BACK after taking them all off? I noticed you removing it...wasn't sure what's going on after a second look! Garchy (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it now - it was Newsjunky12 making the initial changes. We can just ignore this entire thing now :) Garchy (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy: Thanks ... I don't have a dog in this hunt at all, I was relying on the previous, recent reversion of this info (in fact copied the prior summary) for the information that consensus was against the change. Probably should've stayed out of it. General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly made the right call! If only I had seen that the FIRST time I went through the edit summary ;-) Cheers! Garchy (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I do that is right! Golgos is not sure to be Aphrodite and Adonis's son! Tuyết xanh (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the comment "(possibly)" to a variety of articles about Greek mythology, on statements for which reliable sources are cited, is not constructive editing. It is an expression of doubt concerning our cited sources, and hence is an opinion that conflicts with those sources. Please stop now. General Ization ^Talk 15:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this was pure vandalism, for which you could have no possible excuse. General Ization ^Talk 15:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont contribute to the spreading of false information, just because every shitty news agency gets a date wrong doesnt then make it the right date. Heres the first report of the accident, before anybody knew who it was that was killed http://accesswdun.com/article/2015/7/322252/one-person-killed-in-banks-county-wreck-on-i-85

Friday July10th, not Saturday July 11th

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caszual (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Caszual: Perhaps you ought to take another look at the article and at its edit history. Please remember to sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~). General Ization ^Talk 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that first reports are more likely to be unreliable, not less, regardless of what they are reporting. General Ization ^Talk 22:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for assuming it was you that had changed my edit.I dont ever edit anything on wiki so I was trying my best to figure out how it all works. Thank you for fixing the date and for the tips Caszual (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your answer is helpful for mine. (Leave for autosig by robot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk • contribs) 01:34 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ: You're welcome. However, please do not rely on the bot to autosign your comments, as this does not happen immediately, and bots are taken out of service from time to time, leaving your comments unidentified and creating confusion. It really shouldn't be so hard to type four tildes (~~~~) after your comments, certainly less so than typing "(Leave for autosig by robot)". General Ization ^Talk 01:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am new and really have no clue what I am doing, I thought that I would simply give you the information you previously deleted, with the only citation I can find, and let you add it to the Joyland article if you so desire.

Joyland's Roller Coaster was unceremoniously demolished on Thursday, July 23, 2015. http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/effort-underway-to-tear-down-joyland/32334116

Thanks,

Lisa Thomas LTHOMAS55 (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC

Am using my tablet, and following a "screen jump", I mistapped on rollback rather than "diff". Sorry for any confusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me self-trouted for this edit that you reverted on Friday. Was in a rush at the time, and should've read the actual article a little more closely. I'm just used to people labeling someone a country musician as an insult, and probably more guarded about editsum-less IP edits than I should be. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 11:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you are working to confirm the birth date in the Charles Darrow article, and that you have edited the Template:Persondata template. That template is depricated, as noted on the documentation of the template. Please delete the template as part of your updates to the article. Also, it is likely the person has a Wikidata entry; please update the birth date and reference there too. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: I have seen some discussion (can't recall where) of the Template:Persondata template with the information that the templates should not be removed on sight. Apparently some articles may require further processing before they are removed. I will leave that for others who know more about it. Also, I found an article in the August 29, 1967 edition of the Chicago Tribune that states he died "today". Obviously, that could mean he died on the 29th, or it could mean he died on the 28th and the wire service article was delayed. But I have two sources (Find-A-Grave and the Trib) that both say the 29th and only one (NYT) behind a paywall that (apparently) says the 28th, so I have restored the original date to the article (with the Trib ref and a Find-A-Grave template). General Ization ^Talk 19:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just noticed the Trib article has a slug that specified the story moved on the wire August 28, so I am back to the article to change the date yet again! General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't recall off the top of my head where the discussion was about persondata, but the gist of it was that we should give an opportunity to copy the data to wikidata before deleting. If you check wikidata and insure the data is at least as good as the data in wikipedia (including referencing) it would be fine to delete the persondata template. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. He was blocked before, used both account and IP, and persists with this vandalism. Only logical end. Spartan7W § 01:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I reported him at WP:ANEW. General Ization ^Talk 01:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's blanking out talk pages for his various IP addresses. I'd bet you a few Cokes that he'll become a nice sockpuppet. Spartan7W § 01:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartan7W: Don't revert his blanking. He is entitled to blank his own Talk page if he wants to. Your restoring the content is actually against policy. Admins know well enough to look at the history, not just at the current state of the page, and his having blanked it is behavioral evidence. General Ization ^Talk 01:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "various IP addresses". If you know of others, you should add them to the reports at WP:AIV and WP:ANEW. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you're now at 3RR on his Talk page. I suggest you not continue reverting his blanking. General Ization ^Talk 01:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported other IP address. I intended to stop at 3, thought he was using a different address. I did have the 'eureka' moment on my own, forgot he was going at his own talk page. Spartan7W § 02:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartan7W: Now blocked indef. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 13:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went to ECU with Sandy, worked with Sandy at Heart's Delight Ice Cream Shoppe, lived in the same dorm as her and have had many conversations with her in the past 20 years. I personally know she was not in the graduation commencement program because she was 3 credits shy.

Here is my source: Sandra Bullock - Film Actress - Biography.com www.biography.com/people/sandra-bullock-9542453 Bullock had no problem fitting in, becoming involved in cheerleading and school theater productions until her graduation in 1982. Bullock then enrolled in East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina, to study acting, but left college only three credits shy of her bachelor's degree.

GoodnessGrowsAHome (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodnessGrowsAHome: Please explain then how it is she received a BFA degree at the ECU Commencement on May 9, 1987 and her name appears on page 9 of the linked Commencement program. Your personal knowledge or belief, by themselves, are irrelevant here -- we rely on reliable, published sources, and that certainly appears to be one. If you have some other reliable source that explains the discrepancy, please identify it. Note that 5 years elapsed from 1982 to 1987 – enough time that she may have left the college and returned, perhaps more than once. But we would need a reliable source to say that. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that even if the source you mention here did not conflict with the cited source, your having made the edit you made without supplying a citation of a reliable source is a violation of our policies on biographical articles. General Ization ^Talk 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Leighton Meester's (who is obviously, visibly, about-to-pop pregnant with many photos to prove so) Wiki every reliably sourced mention of pregnancy is removed because apparently there has been no formal announcement. With Louis Tomlinson, no one from his camp has commented on anything at all. It's all heresay so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs) 02:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: The word is hearsay. I personally believe we have adequate sources that report on Tomlinson's pending offspring to include this info, but another editor does not, and removed it; I have not chosen to pursue it, because frankly I don't care whether it's added (as long as reliably sourced) or not. That was over a week ago now. And please sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~). General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is hearsay. I was quite sleepy when I wrote that comment. I should turn Autocorrect back on. Anyway, the real truth will come out eventually, she can't be 11 months pregnant if something doesn't add up. Trillfendi (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, General Ization. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Bananasoldier (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey General Ization, I noticed that you edited Igloo and I was wondering if you might be joining our WikiProject. We do weekly collaborations and try to push our articles as far as possible. Regardless, thanks for you overall contributions to Wikipedia! Best, Bananasoldier (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You reverted my edit. I am a resident of Toowoomba. I was using polite language when I referred to the suburban bus service as poor. There have been numerous open letters of complain over the last couple of years published in the local newspaper, 'The Chronicle' about the totally inadequate bus service. So much so, the local MP, Ian Macfarlane, has had to step in and 'pull rank' and push for a major overhaul, promised for next year, 2016. I am not a car owner, so the public transport service affects me directly. I am frequently obliged to use the local taxi service, which I have found to be excellent, in both speed of the courteous service and value for money. I have omitted to state this fact about the taxis in my re-submission of your deletion, in case you think I have some commercial interest, which I have not. I simply want to make visitors to Toowoomba aware of the fact the suburban bus service timetable and city coverage network are both poor, and there is NO Sunday service. However, this deficiency in the suburban bus service is off-set by an excellent taxi service Jmrstreetcred (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) John M. Reynolds. 1st August 2015[reply]

@Jmrstreetcred: The contested text you inserted is "The suburban bus service timetable is regarded by many locals as poor, and cannot be realistically used for commuting. Also there is no Sunday service. The suburban bus service is expected to have a major overhaul in 2016." You failed to provide any reliable source. What survey has determined the opinion of many locals? What shows that no one is able to use the service for commuting (and that no one does)? Who expects a major overhaul, and on what basis? Without a source, these are just your opinions. Subsequent reversion by another experienced editor confirms my assessment. General Ization ^Talk 14:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (hypothetical star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not too familiar with the politics of wikipedia so please excuse me if this was not the right place to respond to your note. You left me the note below:

"Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nemesis (hypothetical star), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. General Ization Talk 23:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)"

I made the edit because the statement in the wiki article was completely made up and the source that it was linked to was completely irrelevant to the information given. I also did state my reason for the edit in the given box.

There were other things wrong with that page but that stood out the most, since the source cited was not quoted. You removed my edit, so I assume that you are OK with people posting lies and not properly sourcing their information?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.226.151 (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed from Nemesis (hypothetical star) was: "According to NASA, 'recent scientific analysis no longer supports the idea that extinctions on Earth happen at regular, repeating intervals, and thus, the Nemesis hypothesis is no longer needed.'" Your edit summary was "THAT SOURCE DOES NOT REFLECT THE FALSE INFORMATION POSTED IN THE WIKI ARTICLE".

The NASA JPL article at the citation attached to the quotation here states (in the answer to the last question on the page): "Recent scientific analysis no longer supports the idea that extinctions on Earth happen at regular, repeating intervals. Thus, the Nemesis hypothesis is no longer needed."[1]

We rely on reliable, published sources here, not personal opinions. The JBL article is reliable and published, and (very importantly) the statement is attributed to NASA, which means that, whether or not you or others agree with the conclusions of the source article, the statement in the Wikipedia article is incontrovertibly true as it is verifiably what NASA has said. You may disagree with the author of the source article, but that does not give you license to remove sourced, factual content from Wikipedia articles.

As I stated in my edit summary when I restored the content, "The restored text is an exact quote from the cited source. Take it to Talk [meaning the Talk page of the article] if you have issues with the source, but do not remove the content again." If you do so, you will likely be blocked from editing. Please let me know if you have any questions. General Ization ^Talk 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, noting the series of recent edits by you that include this, by all means don't let me know if you have questions, because you could have none I would care to answer. General Ization ^Talk 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi General Ization! I'm not sure I follow your reasons for removing a comment from Talk:Smoke detector (1, 2). With new users, we should generally be as welcoming as possible. As you know, this includes assuming good intentions for all edits except blatant vandalism (and this was most certainly not that). That's because we can scare new users away by reverting their unhelpful and helpful edits alike. It's basically biting the newbies. By contrast, if we revert only blatant vandalism without an edit summary (obviously don't want to acknowledge vandals), revert good-faith edits that work against policy or guidelines with an explanatory edit summary, and never revert helpful edits, we can hopefully steer a budding young editor from an immature vandal into a major contributor.

To be clear: We do not expunge a user's helpful edits just because that user has a history of vandalism! Furthermore, anytime a good-faith edit is reverted, a meaningful explanation must be provided in the edit summary (or "See talk page", for long-winded explanations)!

Please note that I do not take issue with you reverting me, but I do take issue with you removing an apparently helpful comment without explaining your issue with said comment (not your issue with the editor!). I'm going ahead and reverting because your explanation (if you have one) should appear in the history of that talk page. If you do have a meaningful issue with that comment and revert me again, please be sure to adjust the indentation levels. Thanks! – voidxor 21:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite candidly, I don't have the time to retrace my steps as of the 10th of last April (or much chance of success at doing so), but since the editor in question was blocked indef for LTA by Acroterion 10 minutes after I reverted their edit at the subject Talk page, I'm pretty certain there was a good reason at the time to consider any of their edits at that point to be not constructive – even those that appeared to be innocuous. I'll take to heart your criticism of me for not including an edit summary at the time, but you can rest assured I wouldn't have reverted the editor just because it appeared to be a new user, or because their comment didn't appear particularly useful (though it didn't). General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a David Beals sock: several were blocked in that time period and Smoke detector is a frequent Beals target. DFTT applies here. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: That sounds familiar. However, I guess I should ask if your interpretation of WP:DFTT supports my having reverted the editor's comment, or not. General Ization ^Talk 00:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, block, ignore applies too. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. voidxor, please let me know if you have any other questions. General Ization ^Talk 00:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have been a member of the Orange County Republican Committee since 1971. I can assure you that Harry Porr was NEVER, I repeat NEVER, Chairman of the Orange County Republican Committee. The City of Newburgh Committee -- I believe so. The County Committee -- never. A man named David McCarey from Middletown who is now deceased (his brother John is currently director of Real Property in Orange County) was chairman in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I believe he was chairman when Harry Porr ran unsuccessfully for County Executive in 1989 (Harry certainly wasn't chairman then!) McCarey was succeeded by Clifford Barber about 1991. Cliff was Chairman originally in the 1970's and served as Director of the West Point Mint during the Reagan Administration. Cliff Barber did not seek reelection in 1995 and was succeeded by John Hicks of Chester, who served until he was defeated for reelection by Bill DeProspo in 2003. Coincidentally both Barber and Hicks died during the past two years. Harry Porr was NEVER Orange County Chairman.Nghtownclerk (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nghtownclerk: Fair enough. I may have been tripped up by a mirror of our apparently erroneous content here. General Ization ^Talk 18:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nghtownclerk (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Thank you for your extremely gracious reaction to my post. Now, let me state that I wish someone could update the politics section of the Newburgh (city), New York article. The city went to a ward system for their city council and in 2013 elected four councilmembers, each from a different ward within the city. This year, they will elect a mayor and two "at large" council members. I simply do not know enough about it to update the article myself. If someone could step forward to do that it would be very helpful and very welcome.Nghtownclerk (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that creedal and credal are both correct. (See, for instance, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=creedal) The latter is probably a self-conscious Latinization, and I think is the preferred British spelling. It's honestly the only way I recall seeing it. In any event, I should have looked it up first. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrhum (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting me know. The sources I looked at only listed the creedal spelling. General Ization ^Talk 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a true fact on River Phoenix and his family...who ever wrote it in the first place does not have a clue.

UNTRUE NON FACT It was during their last years in South America that the entire Phoenix family became vegans.^{[citation needed]}

this is the true fact: what SkyPhoenix6 edited 10 minutes ago, as a family member

I answered on your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 02:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had realised, yes. I was going to revise that aspect of the comment on my next edit--probably to the style Lagr' used, as his comment's a model of clarity in my view. In the interests of efficiency and brevity are you comfortable with removing your comment if I do revise mine? 146.200.32.196 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. General Ization ^Talk 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comment not so much to criticize you as to make sure that the admins didn't inadvertently interpret your comments as I suggested they might. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was a sensible improvement. Thank you. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to The Gift (2015 film). I'm confused. How is a sentence of a film description considered copyright violation, especially if it is cited? I'm just learning about Wikipedia editing so apologies in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantduets (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantduets: Any time you copy text verbatim from another Web site (as here), it is presumed to be a copyright violation. Anything posted here must be in your own words, unless quoted, and if quoted it can only be a brief excerpt from an original source (and we do not use quotes for plot summaries of films here). See the links in the message I left on your Talk page for more information. General Ization ^Talk 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: Thank you for the update. I've attempted to manually condense the plot for that article instead of copying from elsewhere. Hope that is OK. Plantduets (talk)

OH YEAH SORRY I JUST SAW THAT I WAS LOOKING THAT UP RIGHT AFTER I DID THAT EDIT SO SORRY

No Hard Feelings Right? --Caleb William Lott (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  Caleb Lott[reply]

Ironically, had you followed the advice that you gave in this edit summary and explained why you were removing large amounts of content, Bilorv would not need to ask why you removed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to?

• 13:27, 15 August 2015‎ General Ization (-14,378)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Bilorv (talk): No, and you mighht have asked me. (TW))
• 10:13, 14 August 2015‎ General Ization (-14,378)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by General Ization (talk): Please use an edit summary when you are making constructive edits, especially large removals. (TW))
• 09:59, 14 August 2015‎ General Ization (+14,378)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Giopatrick99 (talk): Rv unexplained content removal. (TW))

All three edits included summaries. The second should have made it clear that I found that the removal was constructive, hence my self-revert. Apologies that it (obviously) did not. None of us should rely exclusively on edit summaries to determine the context of an edit, since there is only so much space in the ES field. General Ization ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of writing Please use an edit summary when you are making constructive edits, especially large removals you could have said something like "Self-revert - deleted content has been moved to new article List of awards and nominations received by The Big Bang Theory" and then left {{uw-editsummary}} or a note on Giopatrick99's talk page. Just a suggestion. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sense I upset you with this edit to The Big Bang Theory. I saw you had made two changes in a row, both of which seemed to have comments directed at other users. The summary "Please use an edit summary when you are making constructive edits, especially large removals." didn't seem to explain why you were self-reverting; I found the whole sequence of edits quite confusing but I thought perhaps you thought your first revert didn't work, or accidentally performed it twice, and ended up accidentally reverting yourself. I still don't really understand what happened. I apologize for not contacting you first, but using the undo button notifies you automatically anyway and I was – at the time – fairly sure that I was fixing a problem. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not upset at all. It really was more of a suggestion; I have no right to require anyone to contact me before reverting or reinstating an edit, it just might have saved some time and trouble. I found the previous editor's edit was in fact constructive (because they had moved the content into a separate article and added a {{main}} template), so reverted my restoral of the moved content. General Ization ^Talk 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no harm done. I was slightly confused as the page seemed to have existed since March and your edit summary didn't mention "self-revert" or indicate (as far as I could tell) a change of mind. These small boxes we have to explain ourselves with can create a lot of confusion sometimes. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sky_Phoenix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyphoenix6 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe I should. General Ization ^Talk 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misreading that deleted image. Very embarrassing for me, I guess I ought to get my eyes checked. GAB^Hello! 15:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. My prescription is overdue for an update myself. General Ization ^Talk 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it made sense in context - after all, that sort of fringe source would probably rant about the "gay-dominated media" anyways. GAB^Hello! 16:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversals of my corrections are incorrect corrections by the very rules to which you referred me. There are numerous correct citations in the rules of grammar offered for Wikipedia users that demonstrate the proper use of punctuation inside and outside quotation marks. You restored the incorrect use. Wonder why? The whole enterprise has been a waste of both our time. Monibu8 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Monibu8: Apparently you haven't read MOS:LQ carefully, because, no, none of the uses of punctuation I reverted were correct per that guidance. Perhaps you can tell me which ones you think were correct as you edited them? Is "Burberry Body" a complete sentence? How about "Breakout Stars to Watch for in 2011"? "Model of the Year"? I could go on, but I don't want to keep you from your reading. General Ization ^Talk 01:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Ization, I was not aware of this previous discussion and had only dealt with the issue at the article level keeping an anonymous IP (now known to be Dennis Spiegel) from making changes that were not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Hopefully your changes will appease Mr. Spiegel, but more importantly it is a good resolution to the problem that can be easily and effectively enforced. Thank you for your edits. Spidey104 16:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. General Ization ^Talk 17:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Oil: A Straight Story of the Canadian Oil Sands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sir, I've corrected the reference suggested by you for "The Future of Oil" book. But I'm still seeing a warning message. Can you pleas help? I'm new and learning. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertan2014 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertan2014: The notices are still there because the issues they identify still exist; they are not corrected by merely adding "Patel works for Suncor Energy Inc." to the article with a link to the book's Web site. The article still needs a) citations of multiple reliable, published, independent sources (the book's Web site is not independent) that establish the book's notability and to verify the article's claims about it; and b) work to make the article less like an advertisement and more encyclopedic. General Ization ^Talk 01:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. So, how do I remove that comment (Patel works for Suncor) so we can get rid of all the warnings. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertan2014 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertan2014: I think you've misunderstood my reply. The notices have nothing to do with the comment about Patel working for Suncor. They have to do with everything else in the article. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. I thought that I screwed that page after I added that comment. thank you. How do I improve the article? Any suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertan2014 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertan2014: Find and add citations of multiple reliable, published, independent sources (the book's Web site is not independent) that establish the book's notability and verify the article's claims about it; and b) work to make the article less like an advertisement and more encyclopedic. General Ization ^Talk 03:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do you consider the below as the reliable source?

http://www.theoilandgasweek.com/030413/subint1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertan2014 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertan2014: No, that is an article by the author of the book, therefore not independent or reliable. Please read the articles at the links I have repeated several times above if you would like to learn more about reliable sources, notability and the other issues outstanding at this article. And please always sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). General Ization ^Talk 03:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks a lot for your help, I'll look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertan2014 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Walk of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...makes it wrong and wikipedia doesn't like errors. As an editor, you should be here to help grow an encyclopedia, not hinder it by intentionally making mistakes.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebr1979: The edit I made respects all conventions of English grammar and the Wikipedia MOS when it comes to a date appearing in the middle of a sentence. If you disagree, you are mistaken. I happen to agree with your opinion concerning commas after introductory phrases (e.g., "In 1978, the committee ..."). However, if a sentence can be rephrased to avoid a construct other editors find problematic, that is often the best course of action (certainly better than edit warring over it). That is certainly the case here. General Ization ^Talk 22:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I do extend my apologies. Your edit is actually better. Cebr1979 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings... You recently reverted (appropriately) the changes I made to the Baruch College entry under the name Baruch_OCMPA. I had chosen that screen name for transparency purposes, but it subsequently was blocked by admin Orange Mike for failing WP:ORGNAME.

After doing some research on Wikipedia practices, I've made some suggested edits on the Baruch_College talk page. I welcome any feedback you may have.

Lex 1503 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, General Ization. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David S. Yost".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep erasing my words ALL I AM DOING IS HELPING THE LGBT WE ALREADY HAVE A BAD NAME SO I WANTED TO CHANGE THE WORDS TO SAME-SEX ACTIVITY BECAUSE THEY ARE HETEROSEXUALS AND SEXUALITY ISNT A CHOICE THE WAY THOSE SENTENCES WERE WORDED MADE IT SEEM LIKE IT YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT ITS NOT VANDALISM TRYING TO GIVE US A BETTER NAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HETEROSEXUALITY77 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HETEROSEXUALITY77: You are helping no one. The accepted and neutral term is homosexuality, that was what was said and meant in the articles you edited, and replacing the word with "Same Sex" or "non-heterosexual" is not constructive editing (and certainly not correcting a "misspelling" as you claimed). Your username suggests you have something other than "helping the LGBT" in mind, and that community can get along very well without this kind of help. General Ization ^Talk 03:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In this edit you reverted an edit I had performed. Not only did you not offer any explanation or even an edit summary for the edit, but the resulting prose does not reflect the source accurate. Specifically, you changed the WP text so that it stated that people said Tyron Harris "could not have known he was shooting at an unmarked police car". The source does not say that. Instead, it says that some people said Harris MIGHT not have known he was shooting at an unmarked police car. This is a very big difference in meaning, which you presumably can understand without requiring further explanation. Anyway please take care in the future when blindly reverting others. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Correct stuff thats wrong: My reversion restored the existing text. I have reviewed the cited source, and your edit was correct and will stand. However, you should note that when a brand new account with a username like "Correct stuff thats[sic] wrong" appears and starts changing text in a controversial article with (likewise) no edit summary, a presumption of vandalism will exist. General Ization ^Talk 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid presumption. An innocuous little wording edit doesn't call for much of an edit summary. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Correct stuff thats wrong: Then count me stupid, too. While nothing is 100% reliable, the most reliable marker of incompetence that I've seen is absence of edit summary. A good edit summary would have been "correct per source", thereby giving some indication that you know what you're doing. What's really stupid is calling someone else's judgment stupid when you're clearly in the wrong. FYI, I don't know this guy, I don't have this page watchlisted. I started at Ferguson unrest, which I do have watchlisted, and ended up here. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations — stupidity loves company. The surest sign of competence is a competent edit, which isn't hard to identify if you take a moment to look at it instead of applying a silly "if no user page, then revert" rule which has zero basis in any policy or rule of good sense. Furthermore, probably most edits on Wikipedia are not given with an edit summary. Quit while you're ahead IMO.

Edit: a little inspection reveals numerous edits by a user without a userpage which were not reverted by either of you, despite being unaccompanied by any edit summary, and in fact both of you reverted to restore this material that was inserted without explanation or talk page comment by a user with no user page. Mind you, he wasn't just correcting existing prose to match the source — he was adding new material, and to a controversial article, no less! Yet he got some very different treatment.

Gosh, it's almost as though you both made up a silly ad-hoc rationalization to justify a pointlessly bad edit — after the fact of course. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Correct stuff thats wrong: A truly amazing amount of arrogance for a "new" user. So far, your single edit in article space appears fine, but you have above violated a basic rule here, that being civility. I can't help but wonder if a little research might reveal a previous, less than stellar, history, and that you are a sock. I'll thank you to assume good faith, and to treat me, and others including Mandruss, with courtesy in your comments on my Talk page. If you can't agree to do that, I ask you to refrain from posting here. If you have some complaint with me, you can always take it up at WP:ANI. General Ization ^Talk 01:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim to be a new user. Do you want to be applauded for your bad decision-making, or are you just unwilling to apologize for it, or even admit to it? Can I count on this much hand-wringing and dumb scrutiny for every single innocuous, obviously valid and easily verifiable edit I make, or have you now added me to a whitelist of "acceptable users" who are allowed to edit Wikipedia on your watch? (Actually using the word "scrutiny" is using the word generously; you didn't apply any, at least not regarding the article content that you reverted.)

You want to see arrogance? Look in the mirror, dispense with the veiled threats, and stop trying to justify conduct for which you ought to be apologizing. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Correct stuff thats wrong: I acknowledged my error above, while explaining that from the standpoint of a rollbacker, your edit was suspect for the several reasons I enumerated. I will not apologize for it. If you require an apology in order to be civil, you will be sadly disappointed, and if you continue the incivility, you will find yourself at ANI post-haste. Now drop the stick. General Ization ^Talk 14:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Acknowledged the error"? Sounded more like you were telling me it wasn't an error and you were actually right, for the reasons stated, which were quite stupid and were not a basis for reverting. You shouldn't have reverted, and you should have apologized without further comment when I complained, rather than posturing as if you did nothing wrong. Usually one reads the source and checks the edit before reverting it, instead of reverting without any inspection whatsoever and then leaving it to the other user to bring it to your attention that you've mucked things up. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how this change is vandalism?

John Titor is the name used on several bulletin boards, by a person or persons, during 2000 and 2001 claiming to be a time traveler from 2036

vs the origional

John Titor is the name used on several bulletin boards during 2000 and 2001 by a poster claiming to be a time traveler from 2036.

DID YOU EVEN READ THIS MINOR (AND FACTUAL) CHANGE THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAT, no I don't think so, you did not have time to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.168.158 (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this edit was an improvement to the article. It removed a number of relevant wikilinks from the section, added the meaningless "by a person or persons" (yes, we can assume it was one or the other, without saying so), moved a ref away from the text it supported, and inserted a new paragraph break. The change was not discussed on the Talk page; the "discussion" consisted of you posting a vague justification of your proposed change (without a heading and unsigned) to the article's Talk page 2 minutes before you made it. General Ization ^Talk 17:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]