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)

Should I remove the section "Creating a consensus adding new section" and "Creating a consensus using gender neutral language on past NASA missions" or just reword them? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji: It's OK; just leave it there. However, I think it's already clear that there is no consensus for the imposition of GNL on Kennedy's statements concerning the program to place "a man on the moon". In the absence of consensus, trying to force a vote on the question seems misguided. Also, we do not call this a vote, as WP:NOTVOTE explains. General Ization ^Talk 06:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I briefly read though that article. Sorry for causing trouble. Just don't want anybody getting banned... (at least other editors, if I get banned that "OK") Thanks OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave it as it is, thank you for the guidance on that policy. (didn't know it existed before). Obviously looking though my past edits I'm not that much of a WP:CIR editor (especially the last two points). I just thought by adding that I would help, but reading the policy, it makes so much sense. Looking though this talk page's history like here, editors don't seem to be that nice to you. I guess people forget that over the internet what they say is actually hurts. Obviously we should expect that, and try not to be too hurt by it. I really don't know where I'm going with this comment...I guess its just a way to say "Thank You". I know that editors main intent is to improve Wikipedia, but a "thanks" once in a while goes a long way right?

In all honestly. I was thinking why did I start the vote? And my honest answer would be that it might have been to "get credit" for helping. And that's just not right. It should have been to make Wikipedia better and possibly solve a dispute. And obviously it did not work out so far (hopefully it does). I mean in actuality I have been thinking about this for a while: "Why am I contributing to Wikipedia?", and honestly, my honest answer would be "for recognition/thank". I KNOW, that's wrong, and I'm trying to change that. Other editors mentioned that my edits are in "good-faith", but really, I'm starting to doubt that. CIR does say " Many editors have focused so much on this tenet that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor...Competence is required". Thanks for reading this if you do. I saw that you like coffee looking at your user page, so here's some coffee (to the right). Anyways I will try to improve. Apologies if this seems dramatic and jumps around a lot, that's really not my intent. And again, apologies for causing trouble. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 08:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@OkayKenji: Thanks for the coffee! Don't sweat it. You were trying to do the right thing. General Ization ^Talk 03:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced content to BLPs, as requested. However, can I advise using WP:ANI next time, as WP:AIV is designed specifically for urgent blocks of obvious bad-faith editors; this looks more like WP:COMPETENCE / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, though given the rapid rate at which this editor was adding unsourced content, I speculate that they were using some automation to make their edits, making the need for intervention more urgent to limit the unsourced content that needed to be reverted. General Ization ^Talk 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal difference is that activity at AIV doesn't get documented easily, because vandals typically get bored and do something else so there's usually little point. Whereas rapid-fire disruptive (but possibly good faith) editors are more likely to come back after their block and carry on regardless, so the paper trail that ANI generates is useful there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, General Ization. You have new messages at Talk:Madagascar (franchise)#Averages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I expanded on my edit summary on the article talk page. -- 109.76.207.106 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi~ Nice to meet you ~ I have to restore back to here ~ just to let you know ~ give me a sec and I'll restore your edit ~mitch~ (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I removed one of your warnings for user Kckclizp, as I had already warned about the vandalism on Tfue. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In January 2019, User:Sirlanz decided for some reason to change the referencing system used in Elizabeth Taylor, or at least in the sections on her early life and acting career. The result is that the text is now interspersed with long lists of page numbers (making it visually 'cluttered') and the rest of the article follows a different ref style. Unfortunately I've not been active in the article for a long while, so did not notice this until now. Is there any chance that the changes Sirlanz made to the refs could be rollbacked? It would be very time-consuming to do it ref-by-ref. Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: There is nothing wrong with the changes that Sirlanz made to Elizabeth Taylor; in fact, they are an improvement, even if you don't understand why. They are most certainly not vandalism, which means it would be an abuse of tools for me to use rollback to revert those changes. General Ization ^Talk 11:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that they are vandalism, and I'm sorry but there's no need to be snarky. I was under the impression that they are outdated and frankly, I am of the opinion that they make the text cluttered as on many occasions, several different page number ranges are referenced in one footnote. Could you please direct me to a source where I could learn more about why it is that this type of referencing is seen as an improvement these days? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

That would seem to imply that the cited content is discussed in several ranges of pages within the specified source. As a general rule, page citing is preferred when a book of hundreds of pages is being cited, as here, versus a Web page or other relatively short source where the reader does not need to know specifically where to look to find the reference. The benefits to the reader greatly outweigh the "cluttering" of the text. Please see WP:BURDEN, WP:PAGENUM and WP:CITEPAGE. General Ization ^Talk 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if we're talking about different things here? I certainly agree that the page numbers are essential (I mean it's me who did the research for the article and wrote the references in the first place), just that I don't understand the benefit from having them visible in the main bulk of the text, thus making it longer and more visually cluttered, vs. only appearing when one hovers over the footnote with the cursor (i.e. they are 'hidden' in the footnote). I'm certainly not disputing the need to properly reference.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Please see WP:CITEPAGE as I suggested above. When the same source is cited multiple (dozens of) times with the only variation being a specific page or page range, the citation method now being used permits the consolidation of citations using named refs versus multiple citations in full of the same source. This also reduces the length of the reflist, which is already exceptionally long for this article. The citation format may well vary between sections of an article, as content dealing with different aspects of the subject may cite different kinds of sources. We are far less concerned about "visual clutter" here than about we are about dozens of rows in the reflist referring to the same source. General Ization ^Talk 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary motivation is to render a reflist that better reflects the depth of sourcing. By consolidating references, one can more readily appreciate the true breadth of source material supporting the article; one also has a more immediate snapshot of concentration (possible over-reliance) on particular sources. Having a shorter list is an ancillary positive, I venture to suggest. I agree that there is an increase in visual clutter but imagine it is not such as to disturb or distract most readers. sirlanz 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey General ~ nice to meet you. I was wondering about that ~ in the sources I looked up to see if it was reliable or not ~ all I got was 19th term ~ I was not sure enough ~ because it kinda made sense that if you count how many (which I did not do {I just guessed}) different people held that office... (the word 'term' thru me off) ~ I told myself that hopefully another editor (like you) would correct it. Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You have rejected my update due to the lack of reference, however I have photos of this as evidence. Do I need to also upload photos as proof?

This behaviour is NOT reported or observed elsewhere and there IS NO REFERENCE to this species eating jellyfish either online (that I can find) or in any printed book which I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.237.70 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no published, reliable source for the information you are attempting to add to the article, it may not be added to the encyclopedia. Your personal experiences, with or without photographs, are not verifiable and therefore are not a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 04:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, General. I am very sorry about my errors and mistakes yesterday and today. I am very new here and I am trying to get used to the new typing system used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fans232Gamer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Soccer, American Football, and Baseball. All three of those articles reference the governing bodies for their sports in the professional realm. This is exactly the same thing for the American Cornhole League in reference to Cornhole. Tryder707 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707[reply]

@Tryder707: You are a paid connected contributor as you declared with this edit. If you continue to edit any article where you have a clear conflict of interest, you are likely to be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid to edit this page. This is information that people need to know if they want to be educated on the sport.Tryder707 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707[reply]

You are paid to publicize the American Cornhole Leaugue; it does not matter whether your job description specifically calls for you to edit Wikipedia. You have an obvious conflict of interest and are being paid to represent an organization related to an article you are editing. See WP:PAID and WP:COI. I suggest you stop. The next stop will be the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. General Ization ^Talk 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but then any mention of the MLS should be removed from the soccer page please. Or do I just have to rely on a random person to add the ACL to this page? Tryder707 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707[reply]

@Tryder707: There is no evidence that the information concerning the MLS was contributed to the article Soccer by someone who has a conflict of interest or was paid to do so. Any information concerning the ACL must be added to the Cornhole article by someone who does not have a conflict of interest and is not being paid to publicize it, and must include sources that are independent of the ACL (not the organization's Web site). There are procedures you can follow to suggest this edit, rather than make it; these are discussed at the policy pages I have shared with you. General Ization ^Talk 14:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Tryder707 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)tryder707[reply]

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Present format in Sunbeam (passenger train) for the box does not conform with established formatting patterns.

I made change to allow for amenities. This was not vandalism.Dogru144 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly misread the page history. I reverted the IP that reverted you. General Ization ^Talk 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)~~[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]