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.

I have started a new discussion in the proper place to discuss this dispute. Please come share your thoughts on the subject. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure this is allowed but you are the only person involved in this ongoing discussion that I can discuss this with. A certain user continues to repeatedly change the image of the Venezuelan Flag on the WIKI article for Venezuela. You warned him in the past to stop edit warring but nonetheless, he continues to change the flag. If you could look into this and provide some input that would be much appreciated. Jp16103 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp16103: Warned again. General Ization ^Talk 22:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jp16103 00:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Said individual has done it again and refuses to cooperate. Jp16103 03:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear General Ization,

I'm not sure of the rules, so I apologize if this isn't appropriate. I'm not an editor, but the subject of a page considered for deletion. Personally, I'm not interested in having a Wikipedia page (especially for the reason under discussion). But someone directed me to your discussion of deletion, due to nearly every statement being incorrect. I don't mean to be offensive, or to influence whether the page is kept or deleted, but I felt compelled to correct the wrong information in the discussion - as I frequently rely on Wikipedia to find unbiased and cited information.

1) You state the "Only claim of notability is his Twitter post". I did not make a Twitter post, and do not have a Twitter account. In the link you cite, it is clear that this is someone else's Twitter account, who cropped a screenshot of my private Facebook post (the gray silhouettes below my name indicates the privacy setting: my post was shared only with my friends).

2) The discussion states I am "just an individual who has gone "viral" pushing a political agenda". I did not push, and do not have, any political agenda - not in news stories, or even in my original Facebook post. You will not find any news article or any other mention on the internet where I've stated a single political thought or opinion. I have no agenda - political or otherwise. It was not my intention for this to go "viral", but people seem to have been interested in my experience for a variety of reasons, some of which are discussed here: http://www.popsci.com/border-patrol-secure-devices#page-8

3) Discussion states I am "just an individual who thought he would be immune or exempt to the experience because of his Pre-Screening, employment, family connections, or whatever his thinking was; he just got unlucky and was randomly selected by a computer".

There is no evidence I was selected randomly by a computer. There is no evidence that I thought I would be immune or exempt from the experience - in fact, news sources show the opposite: they state that I'm willing to comply with searches, did not assert my rights to privacy, and was not offended at having been selected:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detained-at-border-trnd/

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-talked-to-the-american-nasa-scientist-who-had-his-phone-seized-at-the-border

4) The discussion states that I'm a 'self-identified "victim"'. Nowhere did I portray myself as a "victim" - not in news reports, discussions with journalists, or even in my original private Facebook post - I stated only the facts of the experience. In answering journalists' questions, I was very careful to note that I have no problem complying with CBP searches, was not offended that my privacy might have been violated, and was not offended at being selected.

5) Discussion states that the event was a "standard secondary screening". Nothing about the event indicates a standard secondary screening - I was forced to give the access PIN to my work-issued phone, against my objections, for the purpose of copying the contents of the phone. The public interest is perhaps because this event was clearly not a "standard secondary screening". For example, the event has precipitated proposed legislation: http://www.zdnet.com/article/draft-law-to-require-warrants-for-border-device-searches/

6) The discussion claims, more than once, that the event is not or cannot be verified. I'm not sure what would constitute proof of the event, but journalists had asked me to provide documentation to corroborate the facts I disclosed (I complied). This includes a scan of the CBP document asserting their right to copy the phone (stating consequences of failure to provide the PIN), boarding pass for the flight, and Global Entry printout with an "X" through my name and traveler info.

7) The discussion states that I am only named a co-author of several scientific papers in the course of my work, and there is not evidence of meeting the academic requirement. I am, in fact, the author (not co-author) of several of those scientific papers (in addition to some not on your list): http://spie.org/app/search/browse?Ntt=bikkannavar&Dy=1&Nty=1&Nrpp=20

When other names appear after mine, it is because courtesy and tradition dictate that I include the names of mentors and important team members who's efforts laid the groundwork for current research, when publishing a paper. (Where my name appears first, followed by colleagues listed alphabetically, every word was written by me).

In addition, based on implementation of the first two papers I authored in the publication list above and additional work and development, I was awarded the 2007 NASA Software of the Year medal: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2008-141

Based on that software, the content of the above authored papers, and other leading work in the field, I was invited to author the textbook chapter in that relatively new field of Wavefront Sensing and Control: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9638106

Finally, I'm listed as a member of the international scientific committee for more than one scientific/engineering conference. For example: http://www.welmo2017.org/committees

Again, I don't wish to offend the editors in the discussion (and I don't ask for follow-up correspondence), but if discussions are taking place, I feel the need to address assumptions and incorrect statements by directing you to as many verifiable sources as possible. Thanks, and Best Regards I7Dc6pIF (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidd Bikkannavar (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidd Bikkannavar|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@I7Dc6pIF: There was no intent to insult you (at least not on my part); this was a discussion of Wikipedia policy and our requirements to establish the notability of subjects of biographical articles in the encyclopedia. We have no way of knowing whether the subjects of new articles wish or don't wish to have an article about them in the encyclopedia (and are prohibited from attempting to contact them to find out), and candidly it makes no difference. We base our decisions on well-defined criteria, established by a consensus of many editors over a long period of time, not on the subject's preference.

Addressing your specific points:

1. This appears to be the post that called your experience to the attention of the world. I could not tell whether your message embedded in the tweet was itself a tweet or a Facebook post, and again it makes no real difference. Let's agree, shall we, that the events came to world's attention as a consequence, intended by you or not, of your post on a social media platform. I doubt that an error in the exact name of the platform will have affected any editor's judgement.
2. I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
3. I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
4. I maintain you were a "victim" of a bureaucratic system that I think we will agree treated you badly. Other than choosing to fly and to return to the United States, you did not invite the attention of authorities nor ask to be detained (please correct me if I'm mistaken). Hence you were not an instigator of the events, during which you were arguably victimized (forced to engage in and/or refrain from certain activities, not by choice and without controlling or having the ability to remove yourself from the situation), whether or not you choose to see yourself as a victim. You identified yourself by describing that experience to others, whether or not you intended that they make it more broadly known. The point of describing you as a "self-identified victim" was not to imply that you had some motive for self-identification, or to otherwise impugn you. See the rest of that paragraph which points out that, unless they are otherwise shown to be notable, we do not write articles on people who have been victims of much more serious (and notable) events, such as terrorist incidents, airplane crashes and the like, much less write biographies of people who have been detained at an airport. We write about the incidents, not about people who were victimized in/by it, unless those people play some larger role in the incident or are otherwise notable. Your experience was illustrative of what many saw as a problem with the Executive Order and/or its implementation, but your role in that larger event was minor. See, among other guidance, Notability (people), Who is a low-profile individual? and Victim lists.
5. I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
6. Verifiability is a core principle here. At the time, my sense from my review of published sources was that all that could be verified is that you described the events to reporters. That is sufficient for news organizations; it is not sufficient for the encyclopedia. I don't recall that any reporters writing in reliable sources stated that they had seen corroborating documents, much less that any published those documents. If I'm mistaken, you're welcome to point it out. They may have done so as a prerequisite to their writing about your experience, but we cannot assume so. This, again, does not mean, and I did not imply, that the events did not happen or that you not describe them accurately. It simply means that we need reliable, independent evidence to claim that they did, and that they were as you described them, in an encyclopedia.
7. Please see Notability (academics). I could not establish that you met any of the criteria set forth there from the sources I was able to find, either in news sources or scholarly publications. Being a principal author of a scientific paper, or many, or of a textbook chapter does not appear among those criteria. I'm sure that the 2007 NASA Software of the Year medal is a prestigious award within the NASA community (though your having received it is not a fact in evidence in the sources I found), but I'm not sure it meets the criterion of a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Perhaps it does, but this is not the context in which an article was written about you. If you think you meet the notability requirements for an article in this context, see the criteria for notability of academics listed there, but please note that evidence must be included in the form of citations of independent, published sources to establish those facts.

Most importantly (and cited by most editors participating in the discussion as their reasoning for !voting as they did), see Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable for only one event. At the time the article was nominated for deletion, it mentioned only your experience with CBP/DHS, and contained no other biographical information other than that you were a NASA scientist who raced solar cars. Your notability in any other context remains to be shown. If it can be, feel free to request that an article be written about you in that context at Requested articles. (Autobiography is generally prohibited here.) General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Remy Ma. Would you have a moment to comment on Talk:Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album)#Content of unrelated interview? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that so called flag of Transsilvanya is a fake. Mirceaab (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirceaab: Please discuss your proposed removal on the article's Talk page as instructed. This is not the article's Talk page. Be prepared to offer some evidence to support your claim. General Ization ^Talk 17:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before I revert the changes in the article Pope Hilarius, this Google books search shows two sources stating 29 February as the date of death. Emiel (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The content I removed was opinion not backed by fact. I assumed that was a proper reason for the edit. Enlighten me, please. LiterateOne (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC) March 3, 2017[reply]

@LiterateOne: The content you removed described the opinions of historians (clearly described as such: "Lastly, some historians see the addition of a red saltire as a commemoration... According to historian John M. Coski ...") and included citations of those historians' works in which they related their opinions. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, you had no basis to remove cited content from the article. If you think you did, please enlighten me. In the meantime, please also read WP:TRUTH, particularly the part about "editors ... may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them". General Ization ^Talk 22:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if I provide sources its ok mentioning these islands?176.92.16.37 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you cite reliable, published sources which say that according to the Treaty of Lausanne Turkey should provide autonomy to Imbros and Tenedos, but that it has not despite the Greek protests, you can make that statement here. If you do not, you cannot. General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in your page? You are responsible for this article? (The autonomy is described also in the articles of the two islands such as at the article of the treaty)176.92.16.37 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not here on my Talk page, nor on the Talk page of the article. You must cite the sources that support your contribution inline with the added content. See WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V. General Ization ^Talk 00:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Cause the article mentions much more turkish claims176.92.16.37 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@DiagramBeFun: You are drawing an inference from the casual statement "Neither of us eats meat and both of us refuse the champagne even though, as the captain points out, it is complimentary" and the fact that he ordered salmon at this particular luncheon. We do not include information in biographical articles based on such flimsy evidence. General Ization ^Talk 15:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Stayhomegal: I have Wikipedia's definition of vandalism for you to read, and your edits [1][2][3] meet the definition. Repeat them or anything like them and and you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 18:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]