User talk:General Ization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Stop icon
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:

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi General Ization,

Thanks for your notification. I realized i did not put the source for Enes Kanter and Kemba Walker's new height. However, i did retrieved the source from with the new height listing. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding of vandalism on their web page [1]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Lemme know if there's any of thing you want me to fix

Steelcityfan (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


About so-called "unconstructive edits" on the "Paulie Pennino" article[edit]

I received a notification about a new message on my "talk page", but strangely that message no longer appears there, as it was removed by yourself two minutes later...
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paulie Pennino. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization Talk 03:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)"
Can you please explain in what way(s) this edit can be considered "unconstructive", or even "constitute vandalism" ? Did you actually read the changes in question before you decided that they "appear" to constitute vandalism ? I happen to have watched the six Rocky movies over the course of a few days before I made that edit, and also edited related articles on "Mickey Goldmill", "Apollo Creed", and "Adrian Pennino". What I added here is both factually true (actual quotes from the movies) and definitely relevant to portray the conflicted relationship between Rocky and Paulie (that moment where Rocky finally tells Paulie that he is a "jealous, lazy bum" is particularly important in that regard). Also it is not true that Paulie "invited Rocky to begin his unique training method of punching sides of beef" – Rocky did it on his own initiative, after he saw Paulie punch a beef haphazadly out of frustration while insulting him ("It stinks in here! And you stink!"). But I begin to feel like, on Wikipedia, representing the truth is not a priority so much as to compile consensual misconceptions.--Abolibibelot (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

When you receive a warning message on your Talk page and it is subsequently removed by the same editor, you can usually assume that that is because the editor or admin leaving the message reconsidered the warning. The reconsideration doesn't mean that the editor agrees that the edit was an improvement, only that they decided the nature of the edit didn't require a warning. Such was the case here. You are obviously much more invested in those changes than I was in reverting them, and I'm not interested in debating their value with you further, especially as the issue occurred two weeks ago. General Ization Talk 15:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello General Ization. You asked for EC protection for this article. The community is very cautious about this protection, and I am not sure that any arb case applies. Have you noticed any sockpuppetry? Or do you think anybody ought to be notified under WP:GS/SCW? Any admin can apply full protection if they think it needed, but that would prevent article development on a current topic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: No, it just seemed to me that given current events the article was ripe for the kind of disruptive editing that was occurring at the time I made the request, and EC seemed to be somewhat more restrictive than semi. I wasn't aware that EC required that there be a history of arbitration concerning the article. I leave it to your judgment, though I think leaving the article unprotected is only asking for trouble. General Ization Talk 23:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Noting, however, that general sanctions already apply to this article. General Ization Talk 23:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:ECP is not one of the things admins are authorized to do under authority of WP:GS/SCW. Though I notice you recently reported an editor at WP:AN3 who was warring at Rojava, and that continues to be an option. And, by the letter of ECP, an admin could impose semiprotection first, then wait a while, and decide that semiprotection wasn't enough. There would need to be evidence, though. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Marlon James - gay or not[edit]

My edit was described as vandalism. When I made the edit I had listened to an extensive interview with the author in which he described himself as one of Jamaica's few openly gay authors. Anyone who deleted my edit - rather than calling it vandalism, could simply have used Google. Her is a link from the Graun in which Mr James homosexuality is discussed. There are many others. Rustygecko (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: It doesn't belong on my page. Read and understand our policies concerning verifiability before editing here, and do not accuse others of homophobia, or anything else, before do so. If you make similar accusations again, you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 23:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Also: it is not anyone else's responsibility to provide citations for your edit. Read WP:BURDEN. General Ization Talk 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo[edit]

Hello, General.

I noticed that you deleted my contributions to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo's page... It occurred to me that you might not know that that's how we typically style our chiefs here in Nigeria, so I thought that I'd provide a link to an article in which that form is used to refer to him.


I'll wait twenty-four hours to give you an opportunity to verify this by reading the article, then I'll restore the edits.

Kind regards,


O.ominirabluejack (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: Sorry, no, I don't see this as any different than how we refer to the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. "President" is indeed his correct title, but we don't refer to him (or any US president) in the lede opening as President Donald J. Trump; we refer to him by his name, Donald John Trump. I can show you any number of articles referring to "President Trump", but that doesn't change the way we refer to him in the lede of his Wikipedia article. General Ization Talk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the cultural practices of Nigeria may be different than those of the US; this is a question of standard practice here at Wikipedia, not an attempt to impose US cultural practices on a non-US leader.

A better example might be Bernard Francis Law, who, as a cardinal of the Catholic church in the US, was forever and consistently referred to as "Cardinal Law" (or "His Eminence", his honorific title) long after he resigned that position in the church. Nevertheless, we refer to him by name as "Bernard Francis Law" in the opening of the lede. General Ization Talk 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Even in the case of Britain's Queen, we refer to her in the opening of the lede as Elizabeth II, not as "Queen Elizabeth" (even though that is how she is consistently referred to by residents of the UK). Unlike the other examples, and as is common with royalty, she has never used her full legal name (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) in any public context. General Ization Talk 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying... However, what about other people in Britain? Elizabeth II is just that, I grant you, but what about the other members of her family? From Charles, Prince of Wales on down, their titles are used in the introductions. If it is in fact official Wikipedia policy, then shouldn't it apply to everyone that holds an aristocratic title of some kind? Sir Elton John is referred to as Sir Elton Hercules John CBE in his introduction, for example.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: See MOS:HONORIFIC, WP:OBE and WP:NCROY. General Ization Talk 17:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, Charles' article refers to him in the lede as Charles, Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles, even though that is how he is commonly described in and outside of the UK. Again, the common name is what appears first in the lede sentence, not the royal or honorific title. General Ization Talk 17:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for those links. They were very helpful. I now refer you to the last one, [[2]]. Seeing as how Chief Obasanjo would rank below a monarch in our system, I will try to find an approximate analogue from Britain. In the section about baronets, it says that honorific titles are not to be used in page titles except for purposes of disambiguation (which I wasn't attempting to do with the chief's). Full titles (comprised of both prefixes and suffixes) ARE supposed to be used in the first sentences of the articles themselves, however (which is what I was trying to do. I started with Chief-----GCFR, Ph.D). The same would hold true of knights and dames, I think. That's why my reference to Sir Elton John earlier was appropriate.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Baronetcy is the conveyance of a hereditary title bestowed by the Crown. It is unclear to me from the article what event resulted in Obasanjo being able to use the honorific Chief[tain], or when it occurred, but it does not appear to be a hereditary title, nor an honor bestowed by a monarch (as in the typical use in the UK of Sir or Lady). I'm not sure it makes sense to draw a parallel between Obasanjo's style and that of a baronet. Was the event simply his accession to the presidency of Nigeria in 1976? General Ization Talk 19:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it isn't tied to the presidency... It's derived from the chieftaincy titles that he received in Egbaland, the Nigerian traditional state that he's from. They are both within the gift of the Alake of Egbaland, a monarch whose kingdom is one of several that are legally recognized here. That's why I keep referring to him as an aristocrat as opposed to a politician.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: OK, point taken. It clearly doesn't fit neatly into our existing guidance, but I can see how you are interpreting the baronet example. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. I won't revert your edit again if you choose to make it. General Ization Talk 00:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing me the courtesy of discussing it with me. Have a nice day.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.