This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 17 February 2016 (Reverted edits by Johnathan Cyprien (talk) to last version by 198.185.66.249). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:10, 17 February 2016 by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Johnathan Cyprien (talk) to last version by 198.185.66.249)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
PLEASE READ
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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:
If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.
 | General Ization is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. Most likely, however, General Ization will not be able to keep away from Misplaced Pages for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway. |
| This is General Ization's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Incredibly fast. Regards, CoconutPaste (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
Untrue
I responded to the points for removal which were either false (that no other article has areas within cities in biographical section) and shown examples and that the insinuation that I was only adding this to repeat Calgary for political purposes. The contributor never addressed my points or responded at all, yet I'm suppose to differ to that contributor which a lack of consensus means I'm wrong?? Cladeal832 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cladeal832: You're supposed to engage in discussion on the Talk page, even if you think the other party is wrong or is "doing it wrong", not repeatedly revert to your preferred version, unless and until a consensus is established. WP:EW is pretty straightforward. Read it. General Ization 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's what the other contributor did and then you sided with him or her. He/she reverted me edit after days of nothing. It should stand with my version until the other contributor gets a consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cladeal832: Sorry, no. Today's edit war started with this edit – yours. The other editor twice encouraged you to resume the Talk page discussion, and you refused the invitation. Also, I didn't "side" with anyone; I have no opinion about the content you were edit-warring over. I cautioned you that you were approaching 3RR, generally cause for a block. The other editor also received a warning. General Ization 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, no to you. This edit war began with this edit this edit, his or her. I didn't revert it. The other editor encouraged to discusss, but never ACTUALLY discusses it. He uses untruths and hyperbolic statements. I've countered them, and he doesn't respond. Then a week goes by and he just reverts the edit. I've actually discuses and researched by position and he hasn't. He doesn't respond so I revert it to my original edit since clearly he doesn't have much of a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- We're done here. The other editor doesn't need consensus to remove content felt to be inconsistent with policy; you need it to add or restore it. Unless you achieve consensus on the article's Talk page, don't continue to revert or assert your version unless you'd like to take some time off from editing. General Ization 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the standard for removal. By your logic, I don't need consensus to add information that's consistent with Wiki policy which I did. I added information that was correct and researched and consistent with other politicians' articles. It was good faith edit. I went to the Talk Page to discuss this and researched by answer to respond to just subjective critics of something that clearly he just didn't like Calgary mentioned too much (that's not Wiki policy). Despite his invitation, the other user didn't actually engage and when I pointed out that he was making false points (that my edit was inconsistent with other politicians' articles despite me showing many example to counter that) he never replied. There was no consensus. Again, it isn't Wiki policy to revert even if you think it's correct (invitation to Talk Page or not). Whatever I did, you made a mistake of siding with one person over another when the other contributor kept reverting my edits which is no different than what you are accusing me of doing. You were wrong, I don't understand how it's okay for you to critic others without noticing that BOTH parties in an edit get warnings. Despite his invitation, I wrote on the Talk Page and he didn't so his invitation was disingenuous (that's not just my opinion, but him both not actually writing on the Talk Page as well as impugning my motives which isn't part of Wiki policy). Cladeal832 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cladeal832: Once again, I sided with no one. You received a caution from me concerning your approaching 3RR in conjunction with a warning by another editor, a warning also provided to the other participant in the edit war. I have not taken and will not take a position in the discussion concerning the disputed content itself (though you would probably not like it if I did). Now please get over it and move on. General Ization 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the standard for removal. By your logic, I don't need consensus to add information that's consistent with Wiki policy which I did. I added information that was correct and researched and consistent with other politicians' articles. It was good faith edit. I went to the Talk Page to discuss this and researched by answer to respond to just subjective critics of something that clearly he just didn't like Calgary mentioned too much (that's not Wiki policy). Despite his invitation, the other user didn't actually engage and when I pointed out that he was making false points (that my edit was inconsistent with other politicians' articles despite me showing many example to counter that) he never replied. There was no consensus. Again, it isn't Wiki policy to revert even if you think it's correct (invitation to Talk Page or not). Whatever I did, you made a mistake of siding with one person over another when the other contributor kept reverting my edits which is no different than what you are accusing me of doing. You were wrong, I don't understand how it's okay for you to critic others without noticing that BOTH parties in an edit get warnings. Despite his invitation, I wrote on the Talk Page and he didn't so his invitation was disingenuous (that's not just my opinion, but him both not actually writing on the Talk Page as well as impugning my motives which isn't part of Wiki policy). Cladeal832 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- We're done here. The other editor doesn't need consensus to remove content felt to be inconsistent with policy; you need it to add or restore it. Unless you achieve consensus on the article's Talk page, don't continue to revert or assert your version unless you'd like to take some time off from editing. General Ization 02:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, no to you. This edit war began with this edit this edit, his or her. I didn't revert it. The other editor encouraged to discusss, but never ACTUALLY discusses it. He uses untruths and hyperbolic statements. I've countered them, and he doesn't respond. Then a week goes by and he just reverts the edit. I've actually discuses and researched by position and he hasn't. He doesn't respond so I revert it to my original edit since clearly he doesn't have much of a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cladeal832: Sorry, no. Today's edit war started with this edit – yours. The other editor twice encouraged you to resume the Talk page discussion, and you refused the invitation. Also, I didn't "side" with anyone; I have no opinion about the content you were edit-warring over. I cautioned you that you were approaching 3RR, generally cause for a block. The other editor also received a warning. General Ization 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's what the other contributor did and then you sided with him or her. He/she reverted me edit after days of nothing. It should stand with my version until the other contributor gets a consensus. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems familiar
Hello G. This removal of maintenance tags and adding stub tags to articles that aren't rings a bell. I think it was sometime last year but I can't remember for sure. If you can come up with the previous editor we can file and SPI. If it doesn't jog your memory please don't worry about it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: It does jog my memory, but it's actually more like a fast walk. I'm not coming up with anything useful. Thanks! General Ization 04:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Some bubble tea for you!
|
Good work on the Europefan socks. But then, I am a sock of you, so we know them when we see them! GAB 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
Sorry
I intended to revert the vandalism, but I accidentally reverted your edit. I undid my contribution for that reason. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Scott Hitchcock
Sorry if that was confusing, I think we hit the speedy button at the same time! I wasn't trying to revert you or anything. Thanks for the good work on here. Blythwood (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Blythwood: No worries, and thanks. General Ization 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for providing that feedback about my edit to the Gibbon page. I work in ape conservation and found a useful link substantiating my edit. I hope I did it right and appreciate your feedback. Here's the link for your reference from National Geographic.
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/03/gibbon-conservation-center-working-to-save-south-asias-hoolock-gibbons-other-small-apes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamandag (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Missing member
Why can't Paul be in the ofwgta Johnthebutcher010 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnthebutcher010: Is Paul "an English comedian, television presenter, actor, writer and radio disc-jockey achieved fame using his comedic drag queen character, Lily Savage, and later became well known for presenting TV shows as himself, such as The Paul O'Grady Show"? No? I didn't think so. So stop linking to the article Paul O'Grady. I think it unlikely that the Paul O'Grady you are talking about is notable at all, but he certainly isn't that one. General Ization 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)