This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry, you are right. I'm so stupid. I can be thankful for that tipp!!! PantherLoop (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please delete my page. PantherLoop (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@PantherLoop: I cannot delete your Talk page. I can blank it, but so can you. Just edit it and delete all the content. Someone will come along and delete the page. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, add this text to your Talk page to request it be deleted: ((db-user)) General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you very likely can't have your talk page deleted. You can blank your user page and/or have it deleted, and you can blank your talk page, but you cannot have it deleted. Linguist¹1¹ 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

My objective was to post explanation for placing a {uw-3rr} there - do I need to formally complain? Roy Bateman (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Roy Bateman: I understood your objective in posting on the editor's page in the first place. My message to you was about the reversion to restore your comments after he removed them. If you think that another editor is edit warring, and find you are unable to resolve the issue without help, report it at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now done this - I hope correctly. Roy Bateman (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I know what Im doing. I do have reliable sources. They are www.silverdollarcity.com and I have been going to White Water longer than anybody else. I know every rule and everything there is to know about White Water. I know what Im doing. Laroyl (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Laroyl: What you are doing is violating Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability by providing no citations of reliable sources to support the edits you are making to the article. Your personal knowledge or experience is not relevant here, as it is not verifiable; see original research. If you continue to add content to the article without citing reliable sources, you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Laroyl: In addition, much of the content you are adding is completely unnecessary in an encyclopedic article. There is no need, for example, to include the park rules in the article here; they are only of interest to those who attend the park, and one would assume they are readily available on the park's Web site and posted at the park. General Ization ^Talk 23:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to add stuff to the page that people want to know and look for, sometimes when planning a vacation. You are just trying to make the page worse. My knowledge can be proven by asking any manager. If I cant put my knowledge here, than where can I put it? It needs to go somewhere. Also, a few things on that page are very wrong and are the wrong slide. Look at the website or recent pictures. Laroyl (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Laroyl: Wikipedia is not a travel guide or vacation planning service. You can correct or add relevant information to the article, but only if you cite reliable sources for the corrected or added information. If you are unable or unwilling to take the time to do that, then please do not edit here. You can post it on Facebook or some other site that is not an encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Laroyl: Also, please see WP:BURDEN, which makes it very clear that is your responsibility to provide citations of reliable sources to support your added or changed content; it is not my or anyone else's responsibility to go looking for it. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your action. You accuse me of vandalism by changing the ranking from sixteenth to 24th, but I notice that the page is intact. In fact my change/correction is correct per Wikipedia's own page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.36.61.45 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you see my subsequent self-revert? (Apparently not.) General Ization ^Talk 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note, however, that one cannot assume that a change is correct because some other Wikipedia page says it is (or because some page that is dependent on Wikipedia for content says it is). It's entirely possible for an error or vandalism to be propagated to multiple Wikipedia pages at the same time (or over time). Had I not been able to verify the correct ranking using an external source, I would not have reverted my change (nor removed the warning from your Talk page). General Ization ^Talk 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am confused as to your edits. Her verified twitter is not considered a source for her announcing her engagement. And XBIZ, whose awards are listed in her bio, is not a credible source for her real name? NewComVIc (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You will notice that I twice provided a source in the edit summary. If you want to dispute you should use the talkpage. Amisom (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amisom: See your Talk page. You will be able to note, I assume, that I only reverted your edit twice, and that both times the content was unsourced. WP:BURDEN doesn't contemplate that an edit summary is the proper place to cite your source. If you would really like to take this up at WP:AN3, be my guest, but beware the boomerang. General Ization ^Talk 17:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OTRS agent (verify): Hi Ization!

It seems as you were made a mistake when reverting a blanking of an AfD. We do actually blank AfDs in the event someone requests it. See ((Xfd-privacy)). (t) Josve05a (c) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. For clarity's sake, I assume the discussion is actually hidden, not removed per se, similar to revdel. Correct? General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it is hidden from direct view (i.e. not visable when reading the AfD, or when a search engine scrapes the page), but not from public view (i.e. not accessible in the history) as a revdel would do. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 19:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sorry, I didn't know "sceptical" was spelled that way in South African English; I thought it was just a spelling error. My bad! 24.17.216.223 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is a good resource for British English, etc. (i.e., not American English) spellings. See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sceptical . General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

cant you stop editing out the much infomation need for these pages. the holocaust denial and the other had infomation thats not there. so when i put why not go see if if true then delete it. but there are sources. but i want you to add this becuase its missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.118.210 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you may not add the claim to any page without citing one or more reliable sources that support it. So far, you have not done so. It is your responsibility, not mine, to provide citations of reliable sources for the content you propose to add. See WP:BURDEN and the information I posted on your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 03:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sudan and Eritrea have not cut diplomatic ties with Qatar which was my primary edit. I'll be sure to leave a comment in the edit summary. The other information I removed (not part of the article) I felt was no longer necessary since it no longer appears that anyone is trying to add Mauritius anymore. No intention of making non-constructive edits. 156.194.136.13 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems another editor has thankfully already made the same edit I had made while I was typing this. 156.194.136.13 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. There are many edits being made, some of them poorly considered and/or simply wrong, to this article at the moment, and those without edit summaries, especially those that remove hidden instructions to editors, are automatically suspect. General Ization ^Talk 04:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know why you deleted a section I directly quoted from a politician's website. Technically that is an official statement from that politician and can be added as a quote. I did cite my source as well. There was no biased language in the quote and was wondering why it can be deleted from a persons website if it was an official statement from that person?

It is an important section recognizing the accomplishments of a certain person and I don't see why they may be listed on that persons wikipedia page. You may as well take away all sections that lists awards people have one from each of their pages. Good luck with all that work! All i ask is to please not discredit awards people have one. The public have a right to know what awards a politician has won during his/her tenure.

Sorry, I just have re-read the section multiple times and have found no bias. And since it was taken from a person's personal website, it should count as an official statement from them.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenrepublican (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

See reliable sources and in particular WP:PRIMARY. We rely on secondary and tertiary sources. General Ization ^Talk 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My edit clearly is within the guidelines of primary sources so there should be no dispute. Please do not undo my comment again. Teenrepublican (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenrepublican (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's true. I don't want to get into an edit war here. You're removing something well known, documented, and cited. Stop reverting it. - Denimadept (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking this to Mediation. - Denimadept (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And you will have seen that mediation was rejected. Contrary to your assertion, my reasons for reverting are clearly expressed in my edit summaries, and are policy-based. Not everything that can be sourced can or should appear in infobox fields. General Ization ^Talk 01:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

However, given that it IS sourced in a Verifiable, Reliable Source, it should stay. There's no reason to pull it. The other demonyms are also sourced. - Denimadept (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Denimadept and General Ization: I don't usually become involved in matters such as this once I have acted on behalf of the Mediation Committee, but I'm going to do so this time because the solution, or at least a path to the solution, is fairly clear-cut. Please understand, however, that what I say here is just me, not me as Chair of the Committee or on behalf of the Committee. If you like, you can take this as a kind of Third Opinion.

• First, the argument that because something is reliably sourced it has the right to be in a particular article is utterly rejected by the ONUS section of the verifiability policy.
• Second, the real issue here is undue weight. And the question there is whether the term is important enough, in the grand scheme of things about Massachusetts, to be in the article via the infobox. That, per UNDUE, is to be determined in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In that light (and, frankly, even in the abstract, but especially in that light), the mere fact that a dictionary recognizes that the term exists is virtually meaningless. (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, at least in spirit, NOTDICTIONARY.) For the information to be included, there must be a demonstration, by at least a couple of reliable sources, that the term not merely exists but is not only significant but is relatively significant in relation to other facts about the state.
• Third, as is made clear by ONUS and by this section of the mediation policy, it is the obligation of the editor seeking to introduce information into Wikipedia to obtain consensus for the inclusion. If no such consensus is obtained, then the information should be excluded.

So the path to getting this included is clear: Find sources indicating its significance, try to obtain consensus in light of those sources through discussion on the talk page, and then go to RFC (or other dispute resolution, though in this case RFC would probably be the better choice if quality sources demonstrating significance can be found). The ONUS of doing that work is on the editors who want to include the information. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's going to take a few days to get the source material. I'll come back to this if I can verify. - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Grand-Pierre

I am dennyn's friend, so I think I should know this. Do I count as a reliable source? If not, read this page: http://www.therainesgroup.com/staff/JLGP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.188.216.235 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2017‎ (UTC)

No; whatever you may know or have reason to know, your knowledge is not verifiable by any reader of the article, a requirement of all content here, especially content concerning living persons. See Identifying reliable sources. Also, the subject's son is not notable, and our policy is generally to not identify non-notable relatives by name. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. General Ization ^Talk 13:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the source you cited above does not support the statement you are repeatedly adding to the article. Please stop. General Ization ^Talk 13:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

READ THE LINK NO. 6 AND IF YOUR NOT BLIND YOU'LL SEE THAT IT IS SOURCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click this link, please. No one named Dennyn is mentioned at http://www.therainesgroup.com, and even if they were, we would not have any reason to mention them here. We have been patient, but it's wearing very thin. General Ization ^Talk 14:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.therainesgroup.com/staff/JLGP Read the last paragraph, and you will see that i do have a reference. I accidentaly gave you the wrong link before, but this is the right one. it was my bad and im really sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎75.188.216.235 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring. General Ization ^Talk 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not make snide, pointed remarks about people abusing more than one account at ANI. If you honestly believe it, WP:SPI is your friend and the folks there will take care of it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. It's not helpful. If it's not sincere enough to belong at SPI, it doesn't belong anywhere. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: I never said a thing about abuse of multiple accounts. My point all along was that the two editors were (and are) members of a cabal (evident through the number of articles where they have closely edited, which was the only observation I made other than their similar use of language) who think that they are exempt from community standards because of their contributions, or perhaps just because, and that anyone who challenges them is interested only in drama. They brought up the implication of socking, not I, and one of them explicitly denied it. At that point, they were also the ones who repeatedly revived the conversation after I was long content for it to die out, to the point that I was the one who hatted it to minimize the distraction from the matter at hand (distraction which I believe the seemingly offended party was trying to sustain, as a form of deflection). Reread the hatted portion in this context and I think you'll find this an accurate summary of events. So thank you for the advice, but it's actually a little misguided. General Ization ^Talk

I never said a thing about you making accusations of sockpuppetry at ANI. I just left some general advice that it's a bad thing to do. You're the one who took it to heart and felt the need to write a whole paragraph in defence.

See what I did there? Anyway. Take the advice or don't. It's up to you. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, you won't mind if I change the heading of this section from "Warning" to "Advice" to better reflect your intent, will you? (I actually don't play these kinds of games, so I resent the implication that I do.) General Ization ^Talk 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

interest in politics

Thank you for quality articles such as Forest Park, Columbus, Ohio, for welcoming users and telling some that their editing is not constructive, for fighting vandalism, for "do not tell me to shut up", with interest in law and politics, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't know how to post a comment about the content without actually posting it publicly. I agree, "I think" is inappropriate. Thanks for your help cleaning the R2-D2 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.98.252 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Alexbrn revision on this subject dismisses sizeable research by other medically trained researchers who after years of study have reached a consensus similar to the underlying medical science Dr. McDougall’s plant-based nutrition recommendations are based on.

Additionally, Alexbrn’s key detractors respectively have critics which should be fully disclosed or have no published medical training themselves and thus have not had medically peer reviewed examinations of their claims.

My revision, in listing a converge of similar medically-trained researchers as Dr. McDougall, permits readers to investigate supporters and detractors for themselves. Alexbrn’s revisions seek to promote only dissenting views to plant-based diet researchers. Quick and heavy-handed attempts to quell points of views that do not subscribe to this bias are evident. Alexbrn's key initial responses to a challenge of opposing published experts show a high bias.2017DB (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@2017DB: Doesn't matter. You are edit warring and must stop immediately or be blocked from editing. At this stage, having ignored multiple warnings, you are likely to be blocked in any case. General Ization ^Talk 13:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A so-called edit-war can not take place from one side only. So longer-standing bias is given unchallengeable standing and truth does not matter??? I wish to elevate this biased reasoning.2017DB (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@2017DB: At this point, if you have anything further to say about this, I suggest you say it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2017DB reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). You have now missed the opportunity to engage in an "elevated discussion" on the article's Talk page, where it belongs. General Ization ^Talk 13:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Please add your opinions on the talkpage of the category page. I was removing the category AFTER the consensus by CpnHaddock was to remove them. My opinon is to keep it. but the consensus of Haddock was the other way. I am still trying to understand the situation. If you can change the consensus please do add to discussion. PS Why have you removed the category from where it was sourced to a published article by Irfan Habib, and removed it from where it was not sourced at all? I can understand one or the other, but not both. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastianmaali: There is no such thing as a "consensus by CpnHaddock". CpnHaddock has an opinion; that is not a consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS, a state which takes time (not infrequently, weeks -- there is no deadline) and the input of multiple editors to achieve. However, please note that you cannot instruct other editors, including myself, to participate in a discussion and/or contribute to the consensus because you want them to. Editors who have an interest in the topic and insight to provide will contribute. However, my interest is in seeing that while the issue is being discussed, no editor is making mass changes based on their personal opinion about what the consensus is or will turn out to be. In general, the category should remain anywhere there are citations of reliable sources to support it, and should not be introduced anywhere there are not. If you can point out a reliable source in an article at which I reverted your introduction of the category, I will self-revert. General Ization ^Talk 15:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. At Irfan Habib and at Vinay Lal it was sourced. For example, Vinay Lal, : Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015.

Many of the articles in the category have no source at all. Those that do have a source, often only write about positive statements about Islam, not about criticism of Islamophobia. The two are not the same. If they need to be categorized in an Islam article, why not create the category Islamophilia instead? --Sebastianmaali (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastianmaali: I see in this edit where you added a link to this column by Anuradha Raman which mentions Irfan Habib in the context of three sentences criticizing the West for publication of cartoons of Muhammed, apparently expecting that to support Category:Critics of Islamophobia. However, it is not enough just to stick a link in a list of links and expect that to support the category you are adding. The characteristic associated with the category must be discussed in the body of the article in such a way as to establish that criticism of Islamophobia is a defining characteristic of the person to whom the category is being applied, and that claim must be supported by citations of reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 15:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and there is also the published article in the Vinay Lal article.

I just do not understand how it is possible that there is no consistency in using this category when looking at the current state of the category. It makes no sense to keep many unsourced articles in the category and at the same time removing sourced ones. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In this article if the full statement of one hospital is quoted surely the full statement of the other hospital should be quoted. The fact that one is short, the other long is irrelevant. Balance requires both or neither. I would favour neither but if you delete delete both.Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jacksoncowes: It should be simple enough to summarize the GOSH statement, or to summarize them both if you insist on parity. If you are unwilling to do it, leave it for someone else to do. It is not sensible to include a nearly 12,000 character statement in its entirety just because another of less than 500 characters precedes it. General Ization ^Talk 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Ta.Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you [1]. I attempted the same, was caught in an edit conflict and walked away. My edit summary was 'no creative writing here.' For what it's worth. 2601:188:180:11F0:4510:6B10:E9EA:E8F6 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome. General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for changing the Daramalan Page. But it is my school and I even know who this famous YouTuber is. If I am allowed to keep it in, what information must I include?

MK8 Master (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MK8 Master: At the very least, it would require citation of a reliable, published source that discusses this in a substantial form. Your personal knowledge means nothing here, because it is not verifiable. Even then, this appears to me to be inconsequential trivia, having little or nothing to do with the college. See among other guidance WP:10YT. Not everything that can be supported with a reliable source belongs in an encyclopedic article. We are not here to promote individual YouTubers, YouTuber culture or YouTube in general. General Ization ^Talk 02:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to add more info about the games released on Slugterra. Isn't that important to include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MK8 Master (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@MK8 Master: See WP:NGAME. General Ization ^Talk 03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Why is removing the statement "In 2012, the average American couple spent an average of over $27,000 on their wedding" not an option? I noticed you updated it to last year's numbers from The Knot. The previous statement cited Reuters which in turn was citing The Knot as well. They are not an unbiased organization and I cannot speak to the validity of their surveying methods. Using an average in this way, while technically true, is grossly misleading. While I'm glad you reworded it so that "average American" is gone (so that it is an accurate statement), as I previously mentioned, it is a purposefully misleading statistic. The median cost of a wedding in 2016 was $14,399 and 73.2% of weddings are under $20,000.^[1] Simply put, while I of course do not deny the cost of weddings have risen, the wealthy are greatly skewing the average. Since $14,399 wouldn't seem to be notable and none of this information directly pertains to Millennials specifically, I simply removed it for the sake of cleanliness and brevity. After presenting these facts, I do not believe the statement to be redeemable in this context. As you so put on your own user talk page, "Does this need to be said?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzampino (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dzampino: Because we do not simply remove sourced content when it can be just as easily corrected, updated or replaced. We are not generally concerned with "cleanliness" or "brevity", but the provision of factual information which you may not find useful, but others might. If you would like to add the information you just cited above in order to provide balance and clarity, please go right ahead. But we don't remove cited content just because we think someone might be confused about the difference between average and median. We give our readers more credit than that. Please always sign your comments on any Talk page, including your own, by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. My reference to Craig Ferguson had to do with Talk page comments and general behavior, not the content of the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: First, I apologize for forgetting the signature. Second, I should not have said "for the sake of cleanliness and brevity", but instead said "for being irrelevant". While it is a properly sourced statement, as I showed earlier, it hardly applies to the majority of Americans, much less Millennials which is what the article is about. The statement is merely relevant to the topic of weddings and as such cannot be corrected, updated, or replaced unless it can be shown to apply to Millennials. If that would occur, than I would naturally agree with your position. Dzampino (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I understood its relevance to millennials after reading the entire section. Perhaps you should do so also, with an open mind. Very briefly, I would summarize it as: the increasing cost of wedding and expenses associated with marriage and married life, along with other factors, are encouraging a significant proportion of millennials to delay or forego altogether what were regarded as "rites of passage" by preceding generations, including marriage. I find the statistic useful in helping to explain why. The fact that it is possible to arrange a wedding for less (even much less) than the average cost is indeed irrelevant, because we are talking about a statistic that pertains to marriages in the aggregate, not trying to arrange an individual wedding, and because many millennials may aspire, when they do get around to marrying, to be able to afford at least an "average", if not exceptional, wedding. General Ization ^Talk 18:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the reasoning behind your edits. I have a personal vendetta against that particular statistic since it is misleading and as such, used and abused by the wedding industry. I will correct the statement (instead of deleting it) to the more relevant median. However, as I mentioned before, that number doesn't seem to be significant in and of itself (which is why I deleted it, instead of changing it in the first place). I still stand by my assertion that the sentence should be deleted. As you stated, the point of that statement in the paragraph is to show that Millennials may defer or even forgo weddings due to rising costs, however, there appears to be no such data. While I have no doubts that the average minimum cost of a wedding has gone up, I am unable to cite that. Using a skewed number paints a false narrative and we should strive for accuracy. In an ideal world, the sentence would read something to the effect of "In 2016, the average American couple paid $14,399 for a wedding, up from (cited number) 20 years ago". Since you continue to refuse to allow the statement to be deleted, I must make do with a statement that technically adds nothing of actual merit to the discussion because there appears to be no historical data to derive that conclusion. I can only hope that down the road, someone adds to the article by sourcing historical data. Dzampino (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement "In 2016, the average American couple paid $14,399 for a wedding ..." would, of course, be false, because that figure is the 2016 median, not the average, according to the source you cited. I do refuse to allow the sourced content to simply be deleted, for the reasons I explained. At this early point in your Wikipedia career I strongly caution you that when you find yourself acknowledging that you have a "personal vendetta" against any content, you should stop, move on and edit something else. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. If you think there is another figure with an equally strong or stronger citation of a reliable source that better explains its methodology and illustrates the point in that section of the article, consider replacing what is there now with that content. General Ization ^Talk 20:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the opening "The average American couple paid ..." is already flawed, in that readers generally believe themselves to be average, whatever their income level or location; that is why I used "American couples, on average, spent ..." General Ization ^Talk 20:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dzampino: OK, no. What you have added is not what the source says. Please think about it more carefully. If you don't understand why, let me know and I will revert. General Ization ^Talk 20:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: I propose we take people out of the statement. "In 2016, the cost of an average wedding was $14,399." I think part of the problem is that there is a general understanding of what we mean when we say "average" versus specifically the arithmetic mean. If you prefer, it can be changed to "median cost" and drop the "average" completely. I mentioned the "personal vendetta" because I have seen and experienced that statistic's misrepresentation firsthand. It is a number frequently cited to justify costs in the wedding industry. I am merely trying to improve Wikipedia, like yourself. If I didn't have that vendetta, I would have simply ignored it, instead of trying to improve Wikipedia in my own small way. Dzampino (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello G. I appreciate you trying to explain things to Mediatech492. A couple weeks ago they had also engaged in an edit war against multiple editors at this article. I was about to file a 3rr report but they did join the discussion here Talk:Titus Andronicus#South Park. You can see their style of "ignoring links to policies" in full force. Ah well - enjoy the rest of your weekend in spite of this :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: No problem at all. Before I responded to them, I reviewed their Talk page history, and it's littered with discussions containing the same kind of arrogant, yet ignorant, comments on their part, so I had a pretty good idea what I was in for. The baffling part for me is that they're not smart enough to look at other editors' signatures, i.e., roles/start dates/edit counts, before they insult them, erroneously "correct" them or start warring with them over policy. A look at yours would have given a normal person a hint that after 145k edits you were already familiar with Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be reverted, much less templated. General Ization ^Talk 01:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You got that right :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: P.S. - I actually got a chuckle out of this: that apparently they don't know that "First ... let's kill all the lawyers." is a line from Henry IV, Part 2 (but that didn't stop them from reverting someone who quoted it on the article's Talk page, later claiming it was inappropriate (!) and irrelevant). General Ization ^Talk 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Forsooth that brings on a great deal of jocularity. Okay that exhausts my bad pun Shakespeare for the evening :-) I hadn't seen that and it is hilarious - thanks for bringing it to my attention. MarnetteD|Talk 01:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought I modified or addressed your reasons for deleting my contributions.

First was "Your use of an obituary to imply that its subject was LGBT, when it does not so state, is potentially defamatory and thus reverted; and doesn't support the content)" If the obituary identifies a male person married to a male person, and is known within the organization and faith to be gay, it is not defamatory and does support the addition.

Second was "source can't and doesn't state what came as a surprise to most; "the misguided change" is not WP:NPOV; sources clearly fall under WP:BIASED)" I removed the first part, leaving only the factual views of members. The sources are from Knights of Columbus and catholic sources. Not a bias of the editor, me, and supportive of the information provided, therefore should be allowable per WP:BIASED.

I did not want to have to delve into a whole new sub-entry on the subject discussing the issues of divisions within the order over homosexuality of members, or abortion etc. I figured a note of how it relates to the dissatisfaction of its membership was best put as a comment with regards to the change in uniform. If you think these things would be best addressed in its own sub are, I will be happy to do so. If not, what way would best incorporate this relevant information in this section without violating any standards.

Vige A. Lant (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Vige A. Lant

@Vige A. Lant: Discuss your changes on the article's Talk page, not on my Talk page. At this point you don't need to convince me, you need to find consensus among other editors for your changes. Unless and until you do, do not repeat them. See WP:BRD and WP:EW. General Ization ^Talk 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

General_Ization

@General Ization: Considering there have only been three other editor changes, with you being the main source, by saying I don't need to convince you, am I clear to re post my modifications without fear of being in error? If not, what and to whom will I be addressing my concerns for consensus in the articles talk page. The only other edits came from a bot and one person without refuting the information present.

Vige A. Lant (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No. See WP:BRD and WP:EW. General Ization ^Talk 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for "Adolph" - I simply missed that his "normal" Swedish name already is mentioned. His own signature appears to be "Gustavus Adolphus", by the way. There is a copy of his signature in the source I used. It's however only with some good will, readable as his Latin name. The used encyclopedia isn't in the PD yet. But will be by 2021, as I have understood the Swedish rules there. The signature itself may possibly be in the PD already, but I'm far from certain.

Another matter - His bloodline is interesting, although born close to 90 years after Gustav Vasa(who made Sweden independent from the Kalmar Union, I think the Swedish flag originates to his time as Monarch, and the first Bible in Swedish was for certain published during Gustav Vasa's reign, it carries his name). He is by some/many (?) regarded as the founder of modern Sweden. Gustav Vasa was a twice married man. And the oldest son of his first marriage, Erik XIV inherited the crown. But his half-brothers conspired and the oldest of them, Duke Johan, became King, Johan III. However did this king marry Katarina Jagellonica, a high noble Polish Catholic. And when their Catholic son Sigismund inherited the Crown, (and also was, or soon became), King of Poland as well, did the youngest son of Gustav Vasa, Duke Karl, fought and defeated Sigismund in Sweden. And became Karl IX / Charles IX , the father of Gustav II Adolf /Gustavus Adolphus. Naturally given reliable sources for all of that, would you recommend me to add a bloodline headline, put it under an already existing headline - or not to add this information within the scope of this article ? I'm humbly asking for your advise. Boeing720 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How Easthall007 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Changing the comment in an article about a transgendered person to state exactly the opposite of what the manual of style actually dictates is indeed disruptive.)) Meters (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for clearing up some of that sockpuppet vandalism on my talk page. I saw you left this message for the master, which I'm assuming you didn't compose yourself specifically for this incident, but (as I said on the earlier SPI) templates are not my friend, and since your edit appeared to include all the text that was added (unlike the template transposing I'm vaguely familiar with) I really can't tell.

I ask because I kinda feel like it could be worded better. I think there's precisely zero chance that that particular editor knows the word "unwittingly", and it bears a physical similarity to the entirely different word "unwillingly", so it seems like changing it to the simpler "unknowingly" would be a good idea, if it actually is some kind of template notification that is in wide use.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete it? It's states why she kept russian citizenship. It shaped her and made her who she was. it absolutely needs to be there. I hope you aren't showing anti-russian bias. Ellius45 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ellius45: Pay attention. It was moved to a relevant part of the article, not removed. General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I noticed at first it was removed completely, before added back in a diffrent part of the article. Ellius45 (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I should not try to cook and edit. There are definitely issues, but most a lot of them seem to be test editing. Lots of children end up here. Sometimes we should treat them like children. GMG^talk 23:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unite the Right rally"

Hi :)

Sorry to ask, but can you please specify what information I added to the article was my own personal analysis, point of view, or commentary? As far as I can tell, I included factual details that were missing, and included a source.

Thanks!

@TheAaliyahJones: See your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop adding to my Talk page. There is no need for us to try to conduct a conversation on two different pages simultaneously. As before, I am moving your comments to your own Talk page, to accompany the previous discussion. General Ization ^Talk 20:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello General Ization! As you appear to be very experienced, correct, frank, firm and you also know much more about Wiki than I do, am I asking you for this advice. You told me that it's possible to have more than one alias. I really don't need two aliases, but a second sandbox (as my current is a mix of many things). Could I possibly create an alias called "Boeing720B" (which physically was a Boeing720 with stronger engines, but besides the point here). Then move my current sandbox to that new aliases' sandbox. Begin to use my current sandbox in a "normal" way. Whilst, at the personal page for the new alias, clearly point out "this is the same editor as Boeing720". I have no intention of using the second alias together with my current. Should an accidental edit be made after all, will it still be obvious who's done it, that it's the same person. Would this be legal ? And if so, would you advice me to do it or not ? (A second "private" sandbox would be of help to me, and I don't want to delete my current one) Boeing720 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Please see WP:MULTIPLE. You will need to be, as you suggested, quite transparent that the two accounts are both associated with you. Also note that if you run afoul of Wikipedia policies, the second account is likely to be blocked as a sockpuppet. General Ization ^Talk 11:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this information! WP:MULTIPLE uses "good reason" and a few examples. And since I gather there is no other way to have two sandboxes will I make a real transparent, absolutely non-sockpuppet second alias. Boeing720 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is there a particular reason that you can't create subpages in your user space to use for this? For example, just go to User:Boeing720/Boeing 720B, User:Boeing720/Subpage, etc, and write and save your work. You can create as many such subpages as you need, within reason. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: See Wikipedia:User pages#Terminology and page locations, and the subsection on Subpages. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these advice, BilCat. I haven't studied your provided link yet, but I will. I have managed to create archives for the talk-pages and guess this is something similar (?) Are you recommending me to remove the second (Boeing720B) account ? (And I hope it's transparent enough) If not, have I currently no real use for even more space. But I will keep it in mind, and thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)