User talk:General Ization/Archive 10

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Florence Henderson

Might you enlighten me as to why you reverted my valid and researched edit on the page Florence Henderson within a minute's time and then reverted your own edit? Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Look more closely. I reverted several vandalistic edits that preceded yours and then reinstated your edit (did not revert the removal of the vandalism). You're welcome. General Ization ^Talk 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

General Ization Hi. I did look more closely. Mine was not vandalistic. Could you please explain "why" you reverted mine? I'm trying to figure this out for the next time. Not to question your intent here. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I wasn't implying that your edit was vandalistic. However, the 20 or so edits prior to yours were not constructive. It was faster to revert to the "last good" version immediately prior to those edits and then reapply your "good" change than it would have been to surgically remove those changes "around" your edit. "Fast" reversion is important on an article such as this which is being heavily edited (because of a current event) in order to avoid edit conflicts and collateral loss of/damage to subsequent edits. FWIW, I had begin the reversion before you applied your edit. I realize that you received a notification that your edit had been reverted. It's a good idea to review the page history when this happens before you become offended; generally, you'll be able to figure out the editor's reasoning by doing so. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't offended. I'm trying to learn from your edit. All I see when I click on your revision is this: [1]. I'm still confused (and obviously ignorant) as to where the 20 edits come into play? Hence the enlightenment query. Thanks! Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

In this edit someone vandalised my user page, and before I could notice it, you reverted it. Thanks and best regards from Amsterdam Amin (Talk) 05:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Your revert to my edit on Assassination

Please explain why you reverted my factual statement. Murder is not universally defined across the World. Further, murder in the US is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person by another. Therefore, when the killing of some person for political gain (as an example) is deemed legal, then it is an assassination yet not murder. Again, killing and murder are not one in the same.airuditious (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aleding: Please review the cited sources for the lead statement in the article. E.g., Black's Law: "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons." This describes murder, not homicide. It is not possible to accidentally assassinate someone, to do so through recklessness, nor to do so without premeditation. I'd be intrigued to hear your theory as to how a killing performed for political gain would be found to be "legal". If you would like to make a statement in the lead that contradicts the existing statement, you will need to cite a reliable source that supports your statement. You did not do so; hence your edit was reverted. General Ization ^Talk 02:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, as to your mention of how murder is defined in the US, Wikipedia does not limit itself to US topics and the article you are editing does not limit itself to assassination in the United States. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comment re: Wikipedia not being limited to the US is actually part of my argument - so no disagreement there. That aside, you are correct that I did err but not in the manner which you state. I neglected to include the word "malice" in my summary definition of murder...so again, murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a person by another WITH MALICE. Homicide is the killing of a person by another and in addition, homicide is not universally illegal in any jurisdiction in America. Finally, the Black's law definition you quote drives my point all the way home - they deliberately did not state "murder" yet they did state killing (i.e. homicide) which is EXACTLY the same as the change I made and you reverted. In essence, no definition of the word assassination should include any statement that it is de facto murder. Please undo your revert. airuditious (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aleding: I'll not revert my reversion, as I'm not convinced. However, I'm wrapping up for the evening and I won't revert the edit a second time, though I won't be surprised if another editor does. My advice to you would be to present your interpretation of the existing sources on the article's Talk page and to seek consensus for it. Unless others agree that the existing sources support your statement, you'll need to find a source that does to say it. General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for a proper birthday citation for Christopher McDonald. I knew his birthday but Ponyo informed me that IMDb was not a reliable source. I'm glad to know that but the true fact should be important. I only thought I was improving an article. Eschoryii Eschoryii (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: Thanks, but I think you have me confused with someone else. I have never edited Christopher McDonald. General Ization ^Talk 02:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

KJMN

The change took place in January not February and you didn't have to report me to AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.101.236 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2016‎ (UTC)

See KQKS: "the call letter change to KQKS took place February 21, 1997".
See WP:BURDEN.
It doesn't matter. When you're blocked for vandalism, using another IP to edit is called block evasion. General Ization ^Talk 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"The programming move took place in January. You may be right about the call letters. And I would appreciate it if you'd remove that report on AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.101.236 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2016‎ (UTC)

Nope. See above. General Ization ^Talk 20:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ohio State History Reversion

It would be one thing to make a short reference to the November 28 incident on Ohio State's campus and a link to its main article. However, such an incident is not so substantial in the scope of Ohio State's nearly 150-year history to warrant more than ¼ of the page's history section. I would recommend either omitting the lengthy paragraph entirely or limiting it to a passing reference and a link to the main article. Thank you. Barnett427 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Barnett427: As I suggested in my edit summary, bring this up on the article's Talk page and seek consensus for the change. In my opinion, your comment points out that the overall history of OSU needs better exposition in the article, not that the length or content of the paragraph about the attack is undue. General Ization ^Talk 01:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And another editor has already done. I'd suggest also adding the question at Talk:2016 Ohio State University attack, since that is where many of the editors who will have an opinion on this are currently working. See where the conversation leads. General Ization ^Talk 01:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

City of Light

Hi. The City of Light is Paris, not Perth. Hence my edit. Grassynoel (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Grassynoel: You obviously didn't read the cited reference I added. Perth was given the nickname "City of Light" as a result of Glenn's observations of the city during his first orbit in 1962. The nickname is hardly unique to Paris, there being at least 30 cities with a claim to it. General Ization ^Talk 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

So you removed my edit why? Just put it back and add a citation needed tag. I'll add the citation when I have time. ADg2k14 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@ADg2k14: Have you bothered to look at the article? General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, citations are not required "when you have time". They are required when you add the content. Please see WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: That still doesn't explain why you removed the edit, which was completely factual and valid. ADg2k14 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@ADg2k14: I didn't. Look at the friggin' article. General Ization ^Talk 04:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: OK. My mistake, I genuinely overlooked the citation needed tag. Please forgive my presumption that you had deleted my edit. To be fair, I did have a page pulled up to be used as a citation but instead I rushed my edit without adding it in. I'll go and do that now. Hope you have a very Merry Christmas and God Bless. 🎄 ADg2k14 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A Question regarding edits from a person with a conflict of interest

Hello, I hope I'm not wrong in leaving a message to you here. I saw that you left a comment for the following user for adding or attempting to promote the company they work for/on-behalf on Wikipedia. They've been removing neutral or negative comments regarding the company and they're still doing it, despite your comment. Is there anything else that can be done?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.33.190.150

I am only interested because I did make some of the original edits, and it annoys me to see them being constantly removed.

Thank you!

176.25.66.145 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sam Sloan revert

I am deliberating on your revert. See talk page and please contribute there.--130.65.254.8 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I already did and removed it. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Your additions do not reflect neutral point of view and in general were not improvements to the article, so were removed. General Ization ^Talk 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't you DARE try to ignore me. You have two hours to come up with a VALID argument as to why I should not re-assert my edits. DO NOT waste my time your facile, pathetic excuses. Think. Use your mind. I command you to use your mind!--130.65.254.8 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition to other policies I suggested on the article's Talk page that you review, please add WP:CIVILITY. You are on thin ice. Don't test it. General Ization ^Talk 04:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Banning

I think we're being trolled. Risker (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Cumbernauld

User and edits already reported to Oversight. Meters (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

darek

I'm not trying to gain anybodys respect or praise

but i will be acknowledged

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means#Use_common_sense

if you want to remove my content fine, but have the decency to ~~call~~ contact me and give me a good reason for doing so

otherwise my suspicions of wiki being wholly given to the enemy is true and you've proven my point as an agent

we're all pawns here

i'm just not fooling myself into believing that i'm not

are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conawaaay (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Conawaaay: I have no idea what content or edits you're talking about. If you'd like an explanation, you'll need to identify them. Otherwise, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia policies and guidance linked at the top of this talk page, which probably includes the "good reason" for removing or reverting your contribution, whatever it was. General Ization ^Talk 20:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Conawaaay: Ah. I see I warned you concerning your edit at Who is a Jew?. Your edits were completely unsourced, and subsequently your edits have been removed by other editors. See Original research. General Ization ^Talk 20:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mullah Omar - Texas 17 Deletion

How can I improve my input on Mullah Omar's Wikipedia page and not be too general or vague?

I addressed, who, what, when, where, why, and how? Is that not good enough and if not, why?

Respectfully, Texas 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas 17 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Texas 17: Your edit was completely unsourced, therefore unverifiable, and consisted only of your opinions and original research. Unless you can cite reliable sources both for all of the "facts" you related and your conclusions, Wikipedia policies dictate that none of your added content can be included in the article. Click on the links for more information on those policies. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Petros Clerides

Why you say the above? Do you know that the information that i deleted is in fact true? Christodoulos2016 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Christodoulos2016: Yes, because the statement you removed is supported by the sourced statements in the body of the article. If you would like to explain your argument for removing the claims, please do so on the article's Talk page, but if you continue to remove sourced content from the article you will likely be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No Warning?

I have spammed several users in the past (without knowing, I'm new to computers), but what surprised me was the fact that you didn't give me any warning. I know that I am a new editor, but I won't overreact to a warning. - ZLEA (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZLEA: This message on your Talk page was a warning, and has been my sole interaction with you. General Ization ^Talk 21:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a warning, but OK. - ZLEA (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@ZLEA: OK, call it a request to stop doing what you were doing. I didn't mention specific consequences if you didn't, and as far as I know you have not incurred any consequences by not doing so. In that sense, I considered it a warning, nothing more and nothing less. What other form would a warning have taken? General Ization ^Talk 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Millbrook High School (Virginia)

Hi General Ization! Happy Friday! I saw that you reverted edits made to this article by an IP, but didn't talk to the user or leave a warning. I wasn't sure if you didn't leave one intentionally, or if you accidentally missed doing so. Just figured I'd message you and give you a heads up just in case. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Why artists should have their own wikipedia page? Should I create wikipedia page for every one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonEditor1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir for the correction

I noticed your assistance on a "mercy Johnson" article I edited, I am thankful for that but, let it hereby be established that In no way am I being biased by the sentence I made. I am Nigerian, Are you Nigerian? If you aren't , it means I claim superior knowledge to you in that regard & what I wrote is nothing but the truth & in no way promotional.

If I were to say "Halle Berry" is an excellent actress would you then query me? Of course not, because you know that as a truth and as a fact.

This same applies to "Mercy Johnson" & the people of Nigeria. she is an "excellent" and "brilliant" actor a good percentage of the African people would attest to this, if in doubt do a google search on the subject and see her list of awards.

THANK YOU ! Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: The only thing of which I claim superior knowledge to you is Wikipedia policies, policies of which you seem to be unaware. Please read Neutral point of view, a policy which makes it clear that we as Wikipedia editors cannot include our personal opinions on the subjects we write about in articles; Reliable sources which explains that content we add to articles must be supported by citations of reliable, independent sources; and WP:Words to watch#Puffery, which provides examples of words, like"excellent" and "brilliant", that are subjective (based on personal opinion) and not appropriate to use in describing our subjects unless we are quoting (and cite) reliable, published, independent sources that use them. There are others that apply, but these are a good start to explaining why I reverted your edit, and will do again if it is repeated. General Ization ^Talk 23:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "Brilliant" or "excellent" in the original texts you deleted. Did you even read it before deleting/reverting it, if I may ask? I used the word "good" & well If it is provision of reference sources to support claim that subject is a good one, then that is what I would give to you in excess & still add a sentence or two, to the BLP so the world can know she is a good actress.

An advice? Focus on what you are sure of and let people within a specified geographical location focus on that which they are sure of. Okay? It saves a lot of stress. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: You used the terms "excellent" and brilliant" in your comments above, in trying to make a case why they would have been perfectly appropriate for you to use. You stated in your edit that Johnson is "known for good interpretation", without stating who knows or even thinks this of her and why they do so (much less citing a source for that claim). It is therefore nothing more than an opinion, expressed in the voice of the encyclopedia, which has no opinion. Please read the policies I mentioned and follow them. They do not vary by the geographic location of the subject of the article. While I appreciate your advice, you should consider also mine. General Ization ^Talk 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And yes, since you asked, I did read your contribution before I reverted it after determining that it violated the policies I have mentioned. I do not revert any edit without first reading it. General Ization ^Talk 01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:113.210.66.226

Noticed you warned him about vandalism on User talk:Sor23. I already reported him at AIV since they're obviously the same. Home Lander (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, he's blocked. Now, who is this guy? I've been on recent change patrol and numerous times noticed stuff like this, with him using some variation or attack on Sro23 as his username. Home Lander (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I don't know, but he's obviously not very bright. Thanks for your assistance. General Ization ^Talk 05:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well congrats, you annoyed him enough that he used so many IPs your page had to be protected. Lol. Home Lander (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Good god, somebody needs to get a life. Home Lander (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hello, General Ization! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Article vandalism

Hi,

Sorry to contact you 'out of the blue'. I noticed that, like me, you've reverted vandalism from IP users etc. on the Gacy article. I wondered what your thoughts would be on protecting this article (at leased for a fixed period of time), so that only auto-confirmed editors can make changes?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: Just requested temporary semi-protection of the article at RPP. If the vandalism resumes after the semi-protection expires, please feel to submit another request there to protect it again. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization:. Thanks, dude. I used to be of the opinion in allowing anyone to make edits. Now I'm beginning to allude to supporting mandatory registration. Sadly, the vandals ruin it for everyone. Cheers, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hey, Good day to you sir,

We had a misunderstanding sometime last week, as pertains to a "mercy Johnson" article in which you asked me to delete certain promotional tones and I refused and was unecessary rude to you, it so turns out that you were correct and I wasn't, for this i am sorry, I commend your maturity also. I'm but an over-zealous rookie. Pardon me maybe ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Of course. Thanks for your candor and your willingness to acknowledge (and learn from) the error. General Ization ^Talk 20:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep up the good work. It doesn't go unappreciated. Sro23 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing of pages

Hello,

I have been editing these pages by incorporating up to date resources, rather than sources dated from 1994 and 1992 that do not conform with the current paradigm in neuroscience. I am not an independent researcher. I study white matter tissues in the brain and can provide evidence to support my claim. I do not see your credentials (whether you have a PHD in neuroscience or in some related field), considering that these views are not skewed, they are neutral. I have provided sources for my claims and have many more that I utilize to study hominid brain evolution. I will stop editing these pages, but claims stating that my editing was disruptive are accepted. If disrupting the ignorance that wikipedia provides the public by presenting false information is wrong, than I'd rather be a disruptive individual. I am a professional in academia and I can see why we must discourage and fail our students for utilizing this website as a source. Have a good day.

Sincerely, A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.189.105.215 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Please point out the sources you cited in any of these edits [2][3][4][5][6][7]; I find none. We require cited sources here and prohibit original research, regardless of the claimed knowledge or qualifications of our editors. In addition, whatever qualifications you may have as a brain researcher, you apparently have none in the area of criminal law, as there is no case law establishing that rage must be a component of premeditated murder. The warnings on your Talk page stand. Frankly, if these edits are a guide, your students are better served by not being subjected to false and/or unsourced information on Wikipedia as a result of your editing here. General Ization ^Talk 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

1. Agnati, L. F., Barlow, P., Borroto-Escuela, D. O., Ghidoni, R., Guidolin, D., Fuxe, K. (2012). Possible genetic and epigenetic links between human inner speech, schizophrenia and altruism. Brain Research 1476: 38-57 2. Agnati, L. F., Cela-Conde, C., Cortelli, P., Fuxe, K., Genedani, S., Guidolin, D. (2012). Neuronal correlates to consciousness. The “Hall of Mirrors” metaphor describing consciousness as an epiphenomenon of multiple dynamic mosaics of cortical functional modules. Brain Research. 1476: 3-21. 3. Allman, J. M., Hakeem, A. Y., Tetreault, N. A., Watson, K. K. (2005). Intuition and autism: a possible role for Von Economo neurons. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences. 9(8):367-373 4. Bauernfeind, A. L., de Sousa, A. A., Avasthi, T., Dobson, S. D., Raghanti, M. A., Lewandowskim, A. H., Zilles, K., Semendeferi, K., Allman, J. M., Craig, A. D., Hof, P. R., Sherwood, C. C. (2013). A volumetric comparison of the insular cortex and its subregions in primates. Journal of Human Evolution. 64:264-279. 5. Bordey, A., Wang, D. D. (2008). The astrocyte odyssey. Progress in Neurobiology. 86: 342- 367 6. Broadfield, D.(2010). Sex differences in the corpus callosum of Macaca fascicularis and Pan troglodytes. In: Broadfield, D., Schick. K, Toth, N, Yuan, M. The Human Brain Evolving: Paleoneurological Studies in Honor of Ralph L. Holloway. Stone Age Insititute Publication Series: 4. Gosport, IN. 213-233 7. Broadfield, D. (2013) Lecture on Homo Erectus. Personal Collection of Dr. D. Broadfield, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. 8. Brune, M., Brune-Cohrs, U. (2006) Theory of mind- evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 30 : 437-455 9. Butti, C., Hof, P. R., Santos, M., Uppal, N.. (2013). Von Economo neurons: Clinical and evolutionary perspectives. Cortex. 49: 312-326. 10. Crow, T. J. (2008). The ‘big bang’ theory of the origin of psychosis and the faculty of language. Schizophrenia Research. 102: 31-52. 11. Evrad, H. C., Forro, T., Logothetis, N. K. (2012). Von Economo neurons in the anterior insula of the macaque monkey. Neuron. 74: 482-489.. 12. Fallah, A., Hassanpoor, H., Raza, M. (2012). New role for astroglia in learning: Formation of muscle memory. Medical Hypotheses. 79:770-773. 13. Feierman, J. R. (1994). A testable hypothesis about schizophrenia generated by evolutionary theory. Ethnology and Sociobiology. 15L 263-282 14. Forrester, G. S., Levens, D. A., Mareschal, D., Quaresmini, C., Thomas, M. S. C.(2013). Human handedness: an inherited evolutionary trait. Behavioral Research. 237:200-206. 15. Frank, M. G. (2013). Astroglial regulation of sleep homeostasis. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23:812-818. 16. Furlan, F. A., Pereira Jr., A. (2010). Astrocytes and human cognition: Modeling information integration and modulation of neuronal activity. Progress in Neurobiology. 92: 405-420 17. Gold, P. E., Regulation of memory- From the adrenal medulla to liver to astrocytes to neurons. Brain Res. Bull. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainr esbull.2013.12.012 18. Horrobin, D. F. (1998). Schizophrenia: the illness that made us human. Medical Hypotheses. 50: 269-288 1. Lundgaard I et al. White matter astrocytes in health and disease. Neuroscience (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.10.050 3. Maturana, H. R., Varela, F. J.(1987) The Tree of Knowledge. Boston, MA : Shambala Publications, Inc. 5. Randall, P. L. (1998). Schizophrenia as a consequence of brain evolution. Schizophrenia Research. 30: 143-148. 6. Nichols, C. (2009). Is there an evolutionary advantage of schizophrenia? Personality and Individual Differences. 46: 832-838 7. Robertson, J. M. (2013). Astrocytes and the evolution of the human brain. Medical Hypotheses. 82: 236-239. 8. Robertson, J. M. (2002). The Astrocentric Hypothesis: Proposed role of astrocytes in consciousness and memory formation. Journal of Physiology-Paris. 96: 251-255.

Here are some of my sources. I have many more, as well regarding the biological basis of premeditation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.189.105.215 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

....

Right now I am very busy studying brain cancer and microcephaly to gain a deeper understanding of white matter tissues. I hope to continue research in psychology in the future when I gain a deeper understanding of the evolutionary roles of white matter brain tissues.

Attolini, C. S. & Michor, F. (2009). Evolutionary Theory of Cancer. The Year in Evolutionary

   Biology 2009: Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1168: 23-51

A. Davis, et al., Tumor evolution: Linear, branching, neutral or punctuated?, Biochim. Biophys.

   Acta (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.01.003

A. Sottoriva, et al., Catch my drift? Making sense of genomic intra-tumour heterogeneity.

   Biochim.  Biophys. Acta, (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2016.12.003

Bronisz, A., Godlewski, J. & Rooj, A. K. (2016). The role of octamer binding transcription factors

   in glioblastoma multiforme. Biochima et Biophysica Acta. 1859: 805-811

Cowperthwaite, M.C., Goldberg, M. M., & Shpak, M. (2015). Rapid and convergent evolution in

   the Glioblastoma multiforme genome. Genomics. 105: 159-167

Goodenberger, M. L. & Jenkins, R. B. (2012). Genetics of adult glioma. Cancer Genetics. 205 :

   613-621

Sidow, A. & Spies, N. (2015). Concepts in solid tumor evolution. Trends in Genetics. 31 (4): 208-

   214  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.189.105.215 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your sources do not belong on my Talk page; they belong as citations accompanying your specific contributions to articles to support and justify those contributions. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Also, will you please learn to sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~)? General Ization ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Kroger

It is the second-largest retailer in U.S. It is correct and I wrote a mistake, but it is the seventeen largest company in U.S. (Fortune 500 2016) and this article has an old source in this data (Fortune 500 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgx8253 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cgx8253: That is precisely the point. If you change information such that it no longer agrees with the existing cited sources, you must provide an updated source that supports the new information you added. Your edit was unsourced. General Ization ^Talk 01:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Martin Shkreli

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)

CBP/DHS Event

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)

@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:

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.
I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
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.
I did not make this statement, so I will not defend it.
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.
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)

Remy Ma (and Fat Joe)

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)

flag.

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

@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)

Date of death Pope Hilarius

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).

Page edit

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

@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)

Aegean

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Venezuelan Flag

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)

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

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

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

Greeting from Azerbaijan. Baku

Hello. My name is Suleyman.Seriously, I dont know that how I found this. But I want to tell you. You're genius. I want to work IT Technic. Can You help me, please? My email solamon.ali@gmail.com Thank you Sorry for disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.160.3 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

What is BrickVelocity doing?!

Holy hell.

That dude has _only_ vandalised Wikipedia. I don't know what he's thinking. Do you have any ideas?

Ellenor2000 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)