Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Happy New Year!

 Happy New Year!
🏈May your new year go better than the 31 teams who passed up on this guy🏈
Love,
Action Jackson

Praxidicae (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New year Abdulahi Ali hussein (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                                                 Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
GorillaWarfare,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 00:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical quotations

It's a ludicrous restriction. He's looking for something to take offence at. Is the Prayer Book out too? The Apocrypha? Kipling and Eliot? Abraham Lincoln? The Byrds? Half the time people quote the Bible they don't even know that they are. Don't play his game for him. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my comment to you that I agree it is not realistic to expect people to avoid biblical references in general conversation. But if someone has just said they do not like it, there is no reason to quote the Bible right back at them in your next breath. You went out of your way to find a Bible reference to throw back at him, which appears to be deliberately antagonistic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't go out of my way, they were lying in the path to be tripped over or picked up. He is being downright unreasonable, and you shouldn't be encouraging him. He raised the issue of how an atheist would respond, and he got just that - an atheist responding, and in doing so trying to point out just how unreasonable he was being. I don't like being told what I can't quote - does my "I don't like it" not have the same worth as his? It's a stupid road to go down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussions at ANI can have both positive and negative outcomes for the person who starts them." Look how easy it was to say what you wanted to say (arguably more clear, actually—I'm not even 100% sure this is what you were trying to convey) without referring to double-edged swords or pointing out that such a reference is drawn from the Bible. Chris.sherlock is clearly upset about a discussion he interpreted as threatening, and while it was reasonable to say what you said about the difficulty of avoiding such references, making a reference of your own was not needed (nor was telling him to "use another language"). In my opinion it is worth going a little out of our way to be kind where possible, even towards someone we've disagreed with in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, or rather won't (because I am not everything he's said about me), say just what the problem is. If I explained it in full then it would make things much worse - for him much more than for me. It's a profoundly frustrating situation. Let's just say that "disagreed with in the past" is one way of saying it - and one which I think is hideously biased (I am sure through ignorance) against me. Do read The Gods of the Copybook Headings. DuncanHill (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, and I do appreciate you being delicate on that point. You are absolutely correct as far as ignorance—I have no idea what the history between the two of you is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've slept on this, and I'm pretty sure his complaints about the quotation are simply a return to his old ways. This comment about his well-earnt reputation by another user pretty much sums it up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am only very vaguely familiar with this person, and so won't try to speak to whether this is a return to old ways or not. But my general opinion, which has not changed overnight, is that if someone requests to not be spoken to in some way or another, it is reasonable to at least try to accommodate their request at least in immediate conversation (again, I am not saying everyone should be expected to remember this preference in perpetuity). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Smith

Thank you. Wikipedia seems to be a target for those well to the left who prefer "USian" to American, "sex worker" to prostitute and etc. and will swarm articles on here. Could you please check the article on Samantha Smith's TV series Lime Street, just to be on the safe side? PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PAustin4thApril1980: Just took a look and don't see anything that looks like vandalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Recent Changes

Hello GW. I see you're currently active at Recent Changes. So, I wonder: do you have any idea why the really useful feature has recently been removed, whereby clicking 'diff' opens a new tab to show that diff, leaving the Live Update of the Recent Changes still functioning? I see we've gone back to the old system, whereby clicking a diff takes one away from the Recent Changes display and takes you directly to that one page's diff. This is bad enough and inefficient enough in desktop view on a PC, but it makes it impossible to easily monitor and revert vandalism using a mobile phone. As there's no Recent Changes talk page for me to moan at, I'm not sure where to post this, apart perhaps at WP:VP. (The irony is that I recently took part in an ORES research study looking at improving how we can monitor and report vandalism and how Recent Changes works, and this reversion back to the old way really is a massive retrograde step.) Any thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the 'open new window' function has disappeared if you now click either the article link or the editor link. Again, these are really retrograde changes, which I should like to see reversed. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I'd ask at WP:VPT, because I have no idea. For what it's worth, I've been Huggling, which does not involve the recent changes page—I don't tend to use the recent changes page and so am not really familiar with what you're describing. Hopefully someone at VPT has more insight into the change than I do! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Apologies if this isn't what you're looking for, but you can get this functionality back by adding:
mw.hook('wikipage.content').add(function ()
{
  $(".mw-changeslist-diff").attr("target","_blank");
});
to your common.js page. HTH, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to you and to Writ Keeper for your helpful replies. Gosh, I wish I understood how to write scripts - it would be so useful, but it seems a completely closed book to me. I would welcome the same functionality for my Watchlist, too. Not sure if that'll do the same thing there, too? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should, yep. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 NFL playoffs

Hey. I see you're currently editing. Could you take a look at the situation happening on that article? There's a bunch of reverts going back and forth, and a request for page protection as well. I'd put a stop to the madness myself, but I feel somewhat involved. Thanks. Useight (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight: I've just protected the page, though it's a little difficult for me to suss out which revision is the proper one to revert to. Any chance you can fix that part? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I straightened it out. Useight (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Gorillawarfare, is this how I have a chat with you?

Thanks for your advice! I'd like to chat about the Michael Savage page and neutrality. Still figuring out how to communicate. Thanks.

TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheyoungmanandtheC: You almost had it the first two times, you just accidentally wrote your message inside of a template rather than at the end of the talk page. In the future you can click "New section" and it's quite a bit easier (instructions, though it looks like you figured it out). Anyway, what are you hoping to talk to me about? You can click edit and respond directly under where I'm writing to you now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hi! I'm going to write something kind of long here. In two parts. First "Background" then "Questions"

Background

I'm hoping to talk to you about the neutrality question regarding the Michael Savage page. I'm a lifelong liberal who's recently taken a more conservative turn, and I appreciate that Savage is not always on the predictably "right wing" side of things. He's against foreign adventurism/regime change, for one example. Strongly opposed Trump bombing Syria. That's not mentioned in the article, and I'd like to add it. As a conservationist, he's devoted shows to animal conservation, and has written a poetic exploration about how a bull feels when it's being killed in the bullring. That would be highly quotable. He's also a moderate on gun control, and that should be added to the article.

His influences: The article says "Barry Goldwater" because one person wrote one article in which Savage said one time that he'd support a Barry Goldwater type of candidate today. But apart from that one case he really has very little to say about Barry Goldwater. Never mentions him on the show. On the show he talks JFK and MLK and Plato (the parable of the cave) and Lao-Tze and Kahlil Gibran and Mark Twain. A neutral "encyclopedia" article has an obligation to tell the truth about someone, yes? And that truth should be fact-based not opinion-based, true?

What's more true than what he actually says? I think you'd agree because his current article has some really LENGTHY quotes! Also, the problem for a conservative, is that if you block conservative news sources (e.g., Breitbart) and only allow readers to know what the New York Times and SF Gate think of someone, well that makes it hard to be neutral. There are studies showing that NYT is liberal, as are Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters.

The article goes into PTSD and Autism at length, and yes he said controversial things in those areas. I would like to add to the article some examples of him speaking sympathetically about depression, suicide, bullying, and sexual abuse. He encourages listeners to call with their stories and it makes for some very compelling audio. Readers of the "encyclopedia" of Michael Savage deserve to know the truth about this.

Having written 44 books, there's a WEALTH of "encyclopedic" knowledge about Savage to to be found in his own writings. A neutral article would have quotes from "Secrets of Fijian Medicine" which includes soaring poetic descriptions of jungles, rivers, villages, and people, and philosophical musings about the nature of biology and culture. His short stories such as "My Silent Brother" (about Jerome) will rip your heart out. And his political treatises are also good sources for what he REALLY THINKS ... rather than what he said to a New Yorker interviewer on one Saturday back in 2007.

This is a richly experienced and very nuanced man, whom the current wikipedia article reduces to a cartoon. Yes I understand wikipedia is not intended to be a biography. If I were composing it from scratch I wouldn't have lengthy quotes, and I tried removing one. But it got reverted. So ... lengthy quotes it is. But there have to be some complimentary TRUE ones as well as the insulting ones.

Finally, I'd like to point out that people evolve. An important part of the "encyclopedia" of Michael Savage should be that, at 77 years old now, he too has evolved. Most of the current article is devoted to events that happened prior to 2009. That's 11-20 years ago! The article badly needs bringing up to date, and my strategy would be to do that by leaving the earlier material alone (if that's what you demand, since you revert my changes) but making the recent material more balanced. I would then structure the article chronologically.

Questions

Question 1 is about quotes from his writings. I want to use but not if your'e going to strike them. Question 2: Can his quotes be used as citations? Again dearth of "neutral" news articles is limiting. Question 3: What is your policy (or where can I read) about links to video and audio?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I KNOW THAT WAS LONG.

@TheyoungmanandtheC: I'll try to answer your questions, but as far as your commentary on the article, that may be better suited to a discussion at Talk:Michael Savage. Aside from two recent edits of mine after you left a comment on my talk page mentioning the article, my only interactions at the article have been to briefly revert vandalism, so I'm really not that familiar with Savage or the edit history of the article. You might have better luck starting a discussion at the talk page, where active editors of that page will see it and can weigh in.
To your question one: you can include short quotes to his writings if they are particularly illustrative to the article, but we try to quote sparingly (see WP:QUOTE). To your question two: only in very rare circumstances. The relevant policies there are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. You can probably guess why we're cautious about this kind of thing—if for some reason there was a Wikipedia article about me, and I had a radio show on which I said I'm the queen of the world, we wouldn't want to just go update my Wikipedia article to say I'm the queen of the world without a third-party source to confirm. But on some non-controversial facts where there's no reason to believe the subject of the article would be untruthful (for example, if I said when my birth date was and there was no other reason to believe otherwise) they can be used—though we still prefer third-party sources. As for question 3, you're looking for WP:External links.
To address a few things you mention in your "background" section:
  • A neutral "encyclopedia" article has an obligation to tell the truth about someone, yes? And that truth should be fact-based not opinion-based, true? You might be interested in reading the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. Your questions are common ones, and you might find the Wikipedia editing community's stance on this a bit surprising, but hopefully the essay helps elucidate.
  • Regarding your points on wanting to add info about Savage speaking sympathetically, you will need third-party sources for this. Listening to Savage's shows and coming to the conclusion that he's sympathetic is absolutely your prerogative, but without any third-party reliable sources reaching the same conclusion, it would be original research to add that to the article.
  • if you block conservative news sources We do not block conservative news sources, we block unreliable sources. Plenty of conservative publications are acceptable to use as sources, but Breitbart has such a poor history of fact-checking that the Wikipedia editing community took the somewhat rare step of blacklisting it entirely.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE FROM TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

— Dear GorillaWarfare, Thank you for your reply. Forgive me for bad formatting. I can't find the visual editor! I will take your advice about chatting with the people who are active editors of Michael Savage. Do you happen to know a name or two I might reference?

— Before I do that however, I’d like to clear up a couple of matters directly with you.

— As preparation for my comments, please visit the wikipedia article for TERRY GROSS. In the top paragraph she is described in glowing phrases like “has won praise”. Now, please skip down to the section on “Difficult Interviews”. That section contains quite a few audio files and transcripts. So I want to be sure that if the TERRY GROSS article can use original audio & transcripts so liberally to support her view of things (that certain interviews were "Difficult"), that a Michael Savage article can do it as well.

— There are also cases in the TERRY GROSS article where the citation is actually a BOOK TERRY GROSS WROTE. The Gene Simmons interview is cited thusly: "The interview appears in Gross's book All I Did Was Ask, and unauthorized transcripts and audio of the complete original interview are known to exist.[26][27][28]" So, TERRY GROSS gets to cite herself?


GorillaWarfare : Aside from two recent edits of mine after you left a comment on my talk page mentioning the article, my only interactions at the article have been to briefly revert vandalism, so I'm really not that familiar with Savage or the edit history of the article.

— Might you define for me your term “vandalism” ?


GorillaWarfare : To your question one: you can include short quotes to his writings if they are particularly illustrative to the article, but we try to quote sparingly (see WP:QUOTE).

— The article as written appears to violate this principle. It has long quotes which do not add much to the value of the assertions they’re used to support. Why not simply state “Savage told a prank caller to ‘get aids and die.’” ? The effect of the long quote is to stick it to Savage. That is how a person WHO STARTED OUT OBJECTIVE responds. Especially egregious, this, given the event occurred 16 years ago and the man has had a continuous career in media, with many many spoken & written words, since then.


GorillaWarfare : To your question two: only in very rare circumstances. The relevant policies there are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. You can probably guess why we're cautious about this kind of thing—if for some reason there was a Wikipedia article about me, and I had a radio show on which I said I'm the queen of the world, we wouldn't want to just go update my Wikipedia article to say I'm the queen of the world without a third-party source to confirm.


GorillaWarfare : But on some non-controversial facts where there's no reason to believe the subject of the article would be untruthful (for example, if I said when my birth date was and there was no other reason to believe otherwise) they can be used—though we still prefer third-party sources. As for question 3, you're looking for WP:External links.

— Your analogy is fallacious. No one is suggesting that we take as fact WHAT Savage asserted about a topic, himself or another. We only take as fact THAT Savage made the assertion. And indeed, that is what the current article does throughout. It’s full of assertions that Savage is claimed to have made. Some of them not even directly attributable to Savage, but rather made second-hand by interviewers.

— In fact this article goes further. It use Savage’s words to jump to conclusions about his beliefs. Claiming that he’s “against immigration” because once in 25 years he said “Read my lips, no new immigrants” perhaps neglecting to insert the word “illegal” into the sentence. That one statement becomes enshrined in a so-called "encyclopedia" and 40 years of other words are, magically, dropped from the record.

— It’s odd that wikipedia would value second-hand sources (interviewers, interlocutors, reporters) over first-hand sources (actual quotes). True, most wikipedia subjects don’t have a 40 year written & audio record of their words, so I understand that a great deal of discussion and thought went into your guidelines. I respect that, I really do. But in cases like Savage’s (and TERRY GROSS) perhaps the transcript or audio file counts more.


GorillaWarfare : To address a few things you mention in your "background" section:

• “A neutral "encyclopedia" article has an obligation to tell the truth about someone, yes? And that truth should be fact-based not opinion-based, true?” You might be interested in reading the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. Your questions are common ones, and you might find the Wikipedia editing community's stance on this a bit surprising, but hopefully the essay helps elucidate.

— Thanks I will read it.


GorillaWarfare : • Regarding your points on wanting to add info about Savage speaking sympathetically, you will need third-party sources for this. Listening to Savage's shows and coming to the conclusion that he's sympathetic is absolutely your prerogative, but without any third-party reliable sources reaching the same conclusion, it would be original research to add that to the article.

— I'm ok with original research. Can you point me to where wikipedia defines that for its purposes?


GorillaWarfare : • "if you block conservative news sources” We do not block conservative news sources, we block unreliable sources. Plenty of conservative publications are acceptable to use as sources, but Breitbart has such a poor history of fact-checking that the Wikipedia editing community took the somewhat rare step of blacklisting it entirely.

— Can you point me to the documentation on that discussion & decision?

GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<tps>What does Terry Gross have to do with this? Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF,, what is done in one place is not a justification for doing it elsewhere, and please stop weaving your comments in with copied text from the section above.s. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Youngman: See WP:BREITBART and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart. By the way, I love your act. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@TheyoungmanandtheC: As I've already said, the best way to start a discussion with active editors of the Savage article is to begin a section on Talk:Michael Savage. I would not recommend trying to contact individual editors, since it is quite common for editors to briefly edit a page and then move on to other topics, or to edit and then become inactive.
As for your comments about Terry Gross, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as Acroterion above has also advised. Wikipedia is full of all kinds of articles of varying quality, and so picking a random article and using it as a model is not advisable as it too may have issues. It's better to model articles directly from policy, or if you do need an article to use as a guide, pick something like a featured article that has been recognized as a high-quality specimen.
Regarding vandalism, I'm referring to WP:VANDALISM.
As for your specific concerns about this article, again, I would urge you to bring them up at the article talk page. I am not an active editor of the page about Savage, nor do I intend to become one. Regarding "I'm ok with original research" -- you may be, but Wikipedia is not. Please see WP:Original research. As for the Breitbart discussion, GRuban has kindly provided you the links above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC) RESPONDS

Thanks to all who weighed in! I have much to learn. Especially about formatting. Special shout-out to GRuban who complimented me on some perceived similarity to Henny Youngman. My name was actually inspired by Hemingway but hey Henny's got some great one-liners!
Regarding admissability of various types of verification, I will educate myself as to wikipedia's standards.
Regarding Terry Gross, my intention was to see if she was the exception that proves a rule. And I believe she might very well be. Will know more after educating myself.
Regarding "vandalism", I must ask GorillaWarfare if she is referring to changes made by me? My changes to Savage's page were, are, and always will be intended to bring it into better alignment with who he actually is. Both historical and present-day truth. Never to somehow disrupt the truth. I justified every change with a rationale. So GorillaWarfare if you WERE referring to my changes it would be most helpful to know which ones you were thinking of.
Here is the relevant quote from WP:VANDALISM - "For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism."

TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheyoungmanandtheC: No, I'm not referring to you—I haven't reverted any of your edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Thank you! TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Clovermoss (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've sent you an email. Thanks!Jp7311 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist propaganda" editor

He did that at another article. I've blocked him as NOTHERE. He hardly ever edits, mostly harmless stuff, so if he appeals and promises to stop, I don't care. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of My Favorite Murder episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Am (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:20 classics of the 80s album.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:20 classics of the 80s album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter.

You may want to salt/look into preventing the creation of lookalike usernames. Impersonator User:GoriIIaWarfare showed up just a little ago, and copied your userpage. I nearly was fooled myself. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have since been blocked. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I have some doppelgangers registered, but it's hard to come up with every possible permutation of my username that clever imposters might think of... GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase l and capital I (and pipe |) should really be handled by mw:Extension:AntiSpoof... --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi. Please could you clarify that if two people share personal info about each other on WP, and that is read by other people, how is the third party responsible for its contents? I'm curious about how this works. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I already specified, please email any questions to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Where did you specify this? Was it in an edit that is now been revdel'd? And is that email address one that I would direct an issue about long-term harassment? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I specified it in my email to you. Did you not receive it? I sent it via Special:EmailUser. And yes, that is the email for the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But whatever it contained, I'm sure my question here doesn't need to have a clandestine communication to answer. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not wish to email us, that's fine, but I am not going to discuss specifics on-wiki. To generally answer your question, if person #1 shares information about person #2 on-wiki, and person #2 does not wish it to be shared, it should not remain on-wiki nor be repeated by others. This is all spelled out at WP:OUTING. If you would like to discuss specifics, you have the email address. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not exactly being helpful here. And I need to correct your mistake - I stated that I did not get your email, which is very different from "wishing not to email us", which is what you wrote. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide me your email address then I can try to resend the email? I was hoping you would email the Arbitration Committee, at which point I could send the email, but that has not happened. My only alternative is to keep sending the email via the EmailUser interface, which clearly didn't work the first time. I am trying to be as helpful as I can but at this point I have no way of establishing off-wiki communication with you, and I am not willing to hold a conversation about a user's privacy concerns publicly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're behind the generic arbcom email mailbox too? Which will result in any comms from me being brushed aside, with all concerns ignored. The system works. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Arbitration Committee, myself included, receives emails to that address. I am not sure what has caused you to form this opinion of me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, in my experience the Gorilla is quite responsive to email. (She doesn't always give the answer I want; but that's a different matter!) The arbcom group email is somewhat less responsive, probably because of the Bystander effect. --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GR. All these off-wiki comms lacks any transparency, coupled with giving my personal details to person or persons I don't trust to begin with, would be a waste of my time. The arb doesn't even bother to ping me, in the hope that the harassment issues I want to raise will go away. So I guess that worked! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I didn't ping you because you've been responding to this conversation without me pinging you the whole way through, and so I assumed you watchlisted my page when you began the conversation. I am happy to ping you if it's needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi GorillaWarfare! You free to help me with something pls? Jp7311 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replied to your email. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Jp7311, I see you're kind of making a habit of leaving these messages on editors' talk pages asking if they can help with something. I would recommend instead just asking whatever it is you want to ask—Wikipedia editors often come and go from editing as their schedules allow, and by the time they see your message, reply to it, and you see the response they are liable to be offline again. I'd also recommend utilizing the noticeboards rather than picking editors at (what appears to be) random—you're more likely to catch someone who's online and able to help. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for taking care of the issue in the email.

Bobherry Talk Edits 02:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do just about anything for kittens :D GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to Kudpung

Hey, I wrote the following:

The word “prefer” made it a request. There was no demand, and he could have declined politely. It would then have been up to GW in knowing how to respond. Perhaps she would have decided to keep her distance from Kudpung. Perhaps it would have escalated. We’ll never know - instead the response was highly aggressive and the start of an ongoing grudge against GE. Not something I expect to see in an experienced admin.
As for the “among men” bit, Wikipedia is predominantly edited by males. For whatever reason, GW feels that her name being referred to amongst men may be a subtle (possibly unconscious) form of downplaying her significance. I cannot say, only GorillaWarfare can really tell us why this is. If course, Kudpung will never know, because he didn’t ask. You, however, could find out by asking her but you also haven’t. Perhaps you should before jumping to conclusions?

It occurs to me that I never actually asked you why you prefer to be referred to by your username when in front of men. It also occurs to me that what I wrote above might be very presumptuous. If it is not too uncomfortable or inappropriate, would you be able to tell me why this is the case? Nobody seems to have actually asked you about this and I feel it would be at the very least remiss of me not to ask. Incidentally, if what I wrote was presumptuous, then I apologise in advance. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock: I've said this in a few places, including to Kudpung shortly after leaving my original "Minor point" comment, the Kudpung evidence, and the workshop pages, but happy to repeat: I realized shortly after leaving the "Minor point" message that my phrasing "among men" was ambiguous. The message I intended to convey was that when my name is included in a list of male administrators, and they're all referred to by their usernames but I am not, I would prefer to also be referred to by my username. That is, when listed among men, I would like to be described similarly. I did not intend to say that the gender of the person making the comment was relevant. I don't care at all if men (or women, or any other gender) refer to me as "Molly" or "GorillaWarfare" or "GW" or any other reasonable permutation, but it does make me uncomfortable when I'm the only person described informally when everyone else mentioned in the same context is referred to by their username. I hope this clarifies. And no, it's not presumptuous at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GW - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I landed on an arbitration page so was just "glancing through it". I saw it was closed and followed the link to the "Workshop" (also closed). I had seen the comments, mentioned several times, that included "among men". It seems it has all been blown out of proportion. Until reading the above I was still unsure of the "ambiguous" wording. I think, without clear reasoning, respect should be shown by keeping it "formal" period as I don't really care about the "gender of an editor" because we are all "editors". I don't use "they" when referring to an individual so I would just repeat the user name, use the acceptable shorter version (like GW), or refer to "the editor". It seems a lot of contention could have been avoided by just asking for clarification of the wording in the first place. I am glad I did read far enough to see your explanation above though. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

administrator accountability

Regarding this comment: my understanding is that the editor is saying if participation in an arbitration case is required for administrator accountability, then this should be explicitly stated. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text is pretty clear that if you're an admin and brought to arbcom that you can't just Trump your way out of it. It's not the United States Senate. Being taken to arbcom is literally a "quer[y] about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". Each individual instance of this doesn't need to be spelled out; that's some 7th grade level D&D rules lawyering to say otherwise.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to start a discussion on what the editor was saying. Just clarifying since GorillaWarfare indicated confusion, to try to avoid more back-and-forth on the workshop page. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: Ah, thank you for the clarification Isaacl. That was not clear to me from the comment there. Since ArbCom has desysopped someone for that very reason, Buffs is probably right that it's worth mentioning in the policy... but I'm certainly not going to make the edit myself, at least not while this case is ongoing, the optics of that would be pretty terrible. Either way it's hardly "reading WAY to much into ADMINACCT" when ArbCom has desysopped based on a finding that specifically cited the admin's lack of participation in the ArbCom case about them. I will copy the substance of this comment over there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national football team

Greeting. I want to announce that my edits in this article are aimed to improve its quality. It's constructive and not vandalizing. I had even put relevant reasons for the edit in the notes. Why are you reverting them for no reason? Trung tá Moore (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trung tá Moore: Apologies for that -- I meant only to revert the most recent edit, in which it looks like you accidentally introduced a lot of spelling errors. I have fixed the revert. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth-wave feminism

Yeah, sorry, I didn't read carefully and thought that I am reverting something else.

Thailand national football team

Hi dear, i want to report user Trung tá Moore to you,he edit History content Thailand national football team unsuitable. SiamAripolis (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Trung tá Moore) He send message to me on SiamAripolis (talk)"Hey, stop making warring edits! I haven't done my editing process on some parts of the article yet. After i will have finished it, you can discuss with me and make it all the way as "suitable" as you want. Now just make your wishful edits in some trial notes but not on this wikipedia page. If you don't you will get blocked for warring edits as you have to discuss with me first because you are the latecomer. Trung tá Moore (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Trung tá Moore (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)" thank you for your help[reply]

Cat010101

Hi GorillaWarfare

Just to let you know Cat010101 is continuing to rip huge chunks of text out of the Bettina Arndt page.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: Thank you for letting me know. I've gone ahead and placed a block, since the account appears to be being used only to gut that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women In Red

Hey GW, I finally got around to looking at the Women In Red project. I always knew we had a problem with representation of women on Wikipedia, but I was appalled it is at about 18% of all articles about people! So you inspired me and I’m trying to write articles about Australian women: User:Chris.sherlock/Women In Red articles created. I started with two articles today and will try to write more about Aussie women as I find the time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! I'm glad some good is coming of this whole mess :) Thanks for leaving me a note! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Flack

Hi.. there are numerous sources on the net/news websites confirming that Flack did indeed take her own life. Regards L1amw90 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L1amw90: Please provide them, then. So far I have only seen this reported in unreliable sources such as The Sun. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/caroline-flack-dead-love-island-host-a9337581.html%3famp

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/15/caroline-flack-dead-reports-claim/amp/

https://news.sky.com/story/caroline-flack-former-love-island-presenter-found-dead-11935068

L1amw90 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@L1amw90: Thanks, I've updated the article accordingly. In the future please provide such references as inline citations when making contentious edits per WP:BLP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how come as a contributor to the article you also get to decide it should be protected? I didn't see anything at WP:RFPP requesting protection (I might have missed stuff in the archive). Thanks. 31.52.160.73 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had never edited the article before protecting it. After protecting it I saw it continued to need WP:BLP eyes on it so I helped ensure the information around her death was sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but actually you had edited it before protection, just :) - [2]. Anyway, thanks for replying. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, that would be how I stumbled across the article in the first place. Regardless, I think we can probably agree that unbreaking a template doesn't make me involved. If it needs re-protection after mine expires I'll leave it up to another admin. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Again, thanks and regards, 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I recently came across something you wrote, in August 2013, where you linked to User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 6#Minors entering into contracts and meta:Wikilegal/Removal_of_photos_uploaded_by_minors.

Thanks! I wrote about minor's contributions in a user essay, User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...#Legal incompetency, due to age. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help and guidance

Hi @Gorilla Warfare:, I noticed you reverted the edit on the Draft:Hamlin Grange. I thought I should clean-up the clutter made by multiple editor reviews who I find in conflict with each other, rather than the article in itself. I read up on the nature of my edits, so thank you for reverting it. Didn't know that one shouldn't remove these tags.

However, I would like to request your help and guidance with this article. I've spent quite some time and energy in writing and researching this biography, but the more I've discussed it with other editors at the Teahouse and elsewhere, the more confusing it has become. Here's the case so far:

  1. I've been asked to remove certain PR links and find more independent links before the article could be published. I did this - the independent links were recognized as such at the Teahouse by another established editor.
  2. I've been asked to add inline citations saying that the subject might be notable, but lacks proper inline citations. I fixed this as per the guidelines, but to no avail.
  3. I've been asked in the live chat by an established editor if Hamlin Grange, as a journalist, is 'quoted' in other articles. I produced dozens of references, but they were all discarded.

I've spent the past couple of days re-reading and developing a better understanding of everything that makes a living person notable - basic notability, inherent notability, secondary notability, systemic bias on Wikipedia, debates and discussions on notability, article assessments, and other essays related to it.

Based on this, I find that my draft on Hamlin Grange, should be published with at least a 'start-class' or 'c-class' rating, as defined here WP:ASSESS. Since you are an administrator, I believe you can give it a fair look and review. Here's how I find the draft to be in accordance with Wikipedia's current policies.

  1. Basic notability established through reliable, independent sources - there are at least two such sources: 1) The Ryerson Review of Journalism and 2) The Globe and the Mail. There are other sources as well, including a couple from Canadian and Jamaican government. The subject was also on the cover of a Black History Month poster - cited in the article.
  2. Secondary notability through awards and publications - the subject has been awarded numerous awards which are covered by some of the references provided in the draft. Hamlin Grange has also co-authored a book with his wife - I've provided a reference to an independent coverage of the book, as well.
  3. There are plenty of other references to his work and life. I've included some of them in the draft. I have dozens of other articles bookmarked in my browser which include him. These are mostly other people citing or quoting Hamlin Grange's work or statements (ref: WP:JOURNALIST Sure, some of them are trivial mentions, but then again I believe dozens of trivial mentions alongside some significant coverage does make a person notable enough.

I know this is a very long post, but I wanted to present you with all the facts as I request you for help. I'll gladly provide any other information you need. Much obliged. FelixtheNomad (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixtheNomad: I would suggest continuing to get help on the article from AfC reviewers and the teahouse, rather than asking random people such as myself for input. I just happened to notice that you'd removed the AfC tags, which should not be done until the article is finished at AfC, and so I undid the edit. Other editors will be able to help you in more depth at the teahouse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Owens

The basic facts of Tom Owens' career can be confirmed by basketball-reference.com. I'm sure there are more sources from during his playing career, but I wasn't planning to dig for old newspaper articles. He played in the NBA, so he passes the basketball notability guideline.

When I created this article in 2007, Wikipedia was a much different place, and people weren't so concerned about inline references. But the basketball-reference page has been in the article since the beginning.

Admittedly, I'm not really watching Tom Owens (or any page) nowadays. I cut back on day-to-day editing several years ago. It just got so stressful, and tedious. But if you see any problems in articles that I created, feel free to leave me a message, and I'll do what I can. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zagalejo: Thanks for pruning and referencing the article! It looks like the basketball-reference.com article was placed in the external links section previously, so I didn't realize that's where the info had been drawn from. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banning me over Caroline Flack

I have learnt my lesson. I got sucked in, didn't I. I tried to protect Caroline. Silly me. Wallie (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallie: You are not banned, you are blocked, and only for one week. This means that you are still a welcome member of the community, and that it's believed you are capable of returning to productive editing once you return. I believe it's possible, too.
You've been around long enough to know that personalizing disputes in the way you were doing at Talk:Caroline Flack is completely unacceptable, and I see that your continuing to do so has resulted in the block being extended from a partial block from the page only to a sitewide block. I hope you will take this week to reflect on your actions, and when you return to editing you will do so in a way that reflects the expectations in WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. We're all here for the same thing, to improve the encyclopedia. If you are unable to see that that is what people are trying to do at Caroline Flack (and that they are not trying to sully her memory), then perhaps there are other articles you could edit instead that you can see more neutrally. Be well, GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Mordhau (video game)

With regards to the following edit: this edit to Mordhau (video game) . I removed the 'controversy' section that was longer than the article itself as it was not relevant to the topic on hand. Half a year later, my edit is inexplicably reverted with minimal explanation and then buffered by other edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutionis (talk • contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutionis: The controversy section is not longer than the article itself. Sourced information about a controversy involving a game's playerbase certainly belongs in the article—your original edit was undone by a different editor (pinging Grayfell), and so per WP:BRD you should discuss your change at Talk:Mordhau (video game) rather than trying to repeat the edit without discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linux (Ubuntu)

Firefox is messing up my Wikipedia layout and user scripts --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

Reverted
Miss GorillaWarfare,

Why was my edit reverted. Please take a look at the sources that I provided below in my edit. Newswatch is a scam ScamReporter (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ScamReporter: Reddit posts are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare Can personal emails be considered as a proof? Since the emails are encrypted, they should be counted as a proof, right?
@ScamReporter: No, sources on Wikipedia need to be verifiable—personal emails are not. Look for reliable publications (for example, a newspaper with editorial oversight) reporting on the issue. You might want to check out this getting started guide to learn a bit more about the kind of sourcing we require on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare But encrypted emails sent from the website as listed on the Wikipedia page should be enough? You can even verify cryptographically that they havent been tampered by me since there are digital signatures on the raw email. You're a developer, so I'm assuming that you understand what I (am dev too) mean too. I can DM you/wikipedia what the raw email is (with crypto signatures), you can verify that. But if you still think that it's not enough, maybe please also converse with the wikipedia team that maybe raw email, with digital signatures should be considered as proof unless their servers have been compromised.
Even if it were verifiable, it would be unacceptable to include it without third-party sourcing. There is no "Wikipedia team"—editorial decisions are made based on consensus among editors. If you would like to solicit input from editors other than myself, I would recommend posting on the article talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism encouraged at Roger Stone

Please help me understand. Why is the Roger Stone page not protected—making it vulnerable to IP vandalism—yet discretionary sanctions apply to prevent more than one revert per 24 hours? I don't get it. We're giving vandals free rein and tying the hands of editors trying to undo their mischief. NedFausa (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: I looked into protecting the page last night when I was handling some of the vandalism on it, but I saw that it was only that one IP editor (who I blocked) who was disrupting the page. There's not really a good argument for protecting the page when the only disruptive editor is already blocked, and although I'm surprised it hasn't been the target of more vandalism given recent events, we don't usually preemptively protect pages like that.
As for 1RR, please know there is an exception to 1RR (and 3RR) for obvious vandalism. Reverting edits like the ones being made by Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B168:C3C8:D83B:9E07:1183:BBAC does not count towards 1RR. There are more details on the exceptions at WP:1RR, as well as in the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" part of the template at Talk:Roger Stone.
If you notice an uptick in vandalism to that page, feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP (or from me, but RFPP is a better bet for a quick response since I may not be at my computer). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I realize you are not personally responsible, but whichever group of editors reached consensus that BLPs of controversial individuals, prominently in the news, should not be preemptively protected made a mistake. Their abdication of responsibility guarantees disruptive editing that publicly discredits Wikipedia and wastes the time and efforts of editors who must scramble to undo incessant vandalism. It's a disgrace. NedFausa (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I mean, the policy village pump exists for exactly this reason - perhaps consensus was never really formed one way or another. Having said that, I'm personally against anything that pushes us towards making IP/anonymous editing infeasible. Maybe it's an inevitability that we will eventually get rid of IP editors entirely, but... really feels to me like we're forgetting our roots. We're already losing good editors as it is - raising the barrier to entry to people who do genuinely want to contribute but don't know how to start is not a good thing, IMO. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 22:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Keep up the good work <3

VanessaCurty (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/942180809

I hope what I wrote wasn't too WP:FORUM-y, but I figured that kind of discussion would be the predecessor to "What are the implications of semi-protecting AN/I?"
Idk, maybe it is just me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Oh jeez, I must have somehow misclicked the rollback button while I was on my watchlist! I did not at all intend to rollback your edit. I've just undone the rollback, so sorry about that! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] All good! I guess even the best of us make mistakes lmao –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

links showing national socialism is opposed to fascism https://www.economist.com/europe/2007/07/26/a-bolshie-bolshevik https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/109936 http://libcom.org/library/excerpt-national-bolshevism-martin-lees-beast-reawakens some links proving that national bolshevism is not part of the fascist movement and never have been. National communism / Stalinism is not mixed up whit Volkish nationalism used under National socialism. It should be noted that A movement that is derived from a neo-soviet / neo-Stalinist standpoint and a soviet socialist patriotist standpoint and Russian nationalist standpoint. should not be linked to fascism.

I think afflicting national bolshevism whit fascism is a form of vandalism that is not fact-based. and neither is proven.

2. it is often an American standpoint that national bolshevism is fascism while other Russia the successor to the national bolshevik party. is in the Other Russia coalition which is both an anti-Putin / anti-fascist coalition.

This is a conversation you need to be having on the article talk page (Talk:National Bolshevism), not my talk page. You also need to stop edit warring to your preferred version, but rather achieve consensus on the talk page first, then make the change (see WP:BRD). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again i dident edit from my viewpoint but from the viewpoint as a officale member of the other russia coaltioen / international member

again I apologise if you think my edit was wrong but as stated above. I generally find it wrong based as an international member of the other Russia party this is my last respond as il be taking this to the talk page. as recommended by you. Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.118.59 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Langan

Well, I understand the redaction, No problem. I just want editors and admins to understand the etiology of this attack. Can you please revert to the version prior to when all this happened? It's my understanding that contentious information needs to be removed first and then earn consensus. TIA DrL (talk)

@DrL: Can you be more specific about which revision you are hoping the article would be reverted to? I ensured that the article had been reverted to the version other admins had been reverting to when I protected it on Jan 23, and it doesn't appear to be substantially different from that now: [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the activity of new editors on the talk page, we'll probably want to extend semi-protection. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I am stepping in to try to handle some of the BLP issues on the page, so I will allow another admin to be the one to extend the protection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of posting at WP:AN requesting community sanctions for this topic and possibly a restriction on the SPAs so they can only comment on talk. Do you want to express an opinion on whether it would be worth trying that? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: That seems reasonable to me. Feel free to ping me in the AN request and I'll comment there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An AN discussion may be worthwhile, but note that this is a BLP, so any uninvolved administrator can already impose discretionary sanctions if needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Got some spare time to jump in? :) I'm guessing Johnuniq is suggesting an AN discussion because both they and I would be considered involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: The problem is the bunch of SPAs who are obviously coordinating off-wiki. I was planning to ask for them all to be restricted to commenting constructively on talk and be prohibited from editing the article. They are mostly new and actual BLP violations are easily dealt with. Their mission is to denigrate the subject in more subtle ways and I don't think the BLP discretionary sanctions have quite enough reach. @GW: I hadn't thought I was involved at Christopher Langan but I see I made a tiny comment in October 2019; I also reverted two vandalisms in May 2018 and December 2015 but they don't count. I was thinking of asking for community sanctions with the edit ban I mentioned. I haven't yet looked at developments in the last 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake, I just realized I was thinking of some of Johnnyyiu's edits as yours. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep bugging you but I would appreciate advice because you have investigated the content in much more detail than me, and are more familiar with what the various SPAs are doing. Do you think that community sanctions would be desirable? Do you think the SPAs should be prevented from editing the article? I can see that it is just a content dispute where the infinite supply of good editors will eventually restore normality, but I find the sudden influx of SPAs offensive and regard the 28 February 2020 comments at User talk:DrL as trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be at least worth considering—the sourcing problems seem to be continuing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed community sanctions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Michelle Martinko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KCRG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

184.170.166.31

Hello, ip user 184.170.166.31 is changing pronouns around among other acts of clear vandalism. It is my understanding that "the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to [...] any gender-related dispute or controversy" without even having to first file a formal complaint, correct? If so, could you do something about that IP please? cave (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only one of the IP's edits are recent. Unless there is more going on that I'm not (yet) seeing, perhaps just a templated warning message would suffice? Useight (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurocave: I'm just about to leave work and then am getting dinner with a friend, so if this is urgent I would recommend filing a request at WP:AIV or WP:AE. Otherwise I'll take a look when I get home later tonight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at the Village Pump to streamline the welcome template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. This may be of interest to you as a member of the Wikipedia Help Project. Sdkb (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

An arbitration case regarding Kudpung has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
  • Kudpung is admonished for failing to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator. In future, he is urged to ensure that he remains civil in his interactions with both new and regular editors, and responds to feedback on his conduct objectively and with an assumption of good faith.
  • Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The community is reminded that attempting to have a community-wide discussion of problematic behavior early on can prevent unnecessary escalations.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint sources

Regarding this edit[4], I believe the archive.org links you removed do in fact support the birth name, even if the non-archive.org links have since removed mention of it. Was this an oversight, or is there a reason why the archive.org links shouldn't be used? Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed a mistake -- I didn't see the archive links in there. I've restored the sources, thanks for pointing that out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we should ask for assistance from the WP:RSNB, we have circular referencing, reliance on archived (unrefactored) sources, and self-published sources. I think that leaves only one source that includes ‘Agnes’ which makes it demonstrably wrong. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We could ask for input, though I wouldn't be surprised if people just wanted the conversation to stay in the context of the RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín (footballer, born 1981)

Hey there GW, from Portugal,

If a source could be found to confirm he was breasted until the age of 7, do you think it would be encyclopedical info? You would agree with me it's rather unusual, as most humans cease that part of their lifes at 1 or 2. I could have sworn it was included in the source found in his personal life section (#36), but read it today thoroughly and found out it is not, maybe my mind was just being autosuggestive.

Keep up the good work, happy week/editing --Quite A Character (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's relevant to mention it even if it can be sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, then i guess article can stay the way it is (in the personal life section), just writing you so i could have your two cents on it. I brought forth some reasons as to why it could ("could", mind you, not "should") be included in my original message, but "unusual" does not make it "encyclopedical" so i see where you are coming from. --Quite A Character (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A question about the visual editor

Hi, I noticed some time ago English wikipedia doesn't have any longer an option of visual editing while wikipedia in other languages keeps providing such an option.

Could you confirm it's true or maybe it's available in another place?

If it's not available any more, do you know the reason? Grillofrances (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grillofrances, The visual editor is still available, it's just hidden by default for registered users. It is currently disabled for unregistered editors due to an RFC back when VE was first introduced that nobody's bothered to overturn. You can enable it by following the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:VisualEditor. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]
Thanks for the quicker reply than me, AntiCompositeNumber :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you both Grillofrances (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revert

thanks for revert I was about to change it to Singapore which is cited by the ref....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref? The one following your addition mentions nothing about schools ([5]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[6](it discusses South Korea and other countries like Singapore which has maintained its schools opened)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objections as long as you include the inline citation this time. Though I'm not sure where you're planning to put it -- there's no section for Singapore at the moment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
your right however, expanding South Korea to mention other Asian countries can be done(not including China)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just note the comment at the top of the Domestic responses section, asking for consensus be achieved before new sections are added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well I just added it to the South Korea section, without creating a new section(in the end, its just a comparison of how one country is doing better in one particular aspect(keeping schools open) in contrast to other countries(in this case South Korea)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you've probably already seen, I reverted it. It makes no sense for that to go in the South Korea section, and your wording was WP:EDITORIALIZING. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok(?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS:MOS question

Hello, GW! How are you holding up? I have a question about Discretionary Sanctions. For the "Manual of Style" category, do the sanctions apply to people who make changes according to (or in opposition to) the established MoS, or do they only apply to people who dispute the policies and guidelines associated with the MoS? It isn't quite clear at first glance. Thanks for your service and your kind attention. Stay healthy! Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizium23! Holding up pretty well, all things considered. The DS authorization in the Article titles case can be read in full at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions. It does not apply to changes according to/in opposition to the MoS—I think if it were that broad it would cover just about any edit to Wikipedia. Stay well yourself! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, and clears it up for me, so thanks much! Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a note saying thank you for being so willing to engage publicly and on-list. It really is appreciated. I've been much more critical of this incarnation of the committee than I'm used to being, so it feels weird arguing those stances since I'm normally very "they're trying to engage guys..." Anyway, thank you for your excellent work, even when we're in disagreement. It is very appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: You're welcome, and thank you for these kind words as well as for speaking up when you have concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Burmann

You cannot know that Wilhelm Burmann will die on April 30, 2020 unless you have a WP:Crystal ball. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JRSpriggs: Agh, thank you, I've corrected it. Most of the articles were published in April despite him dying in March, which I think is what threw me off. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
All of your hard work is seen and appreciated! Keep being beautiful! Reciprocater (Talk) 07:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a question

Could you expand some more on why you deleted my contribution to the Christopher Langan article? I would like to read the rationale behind it.


Friendly greetings

@Freeza02: Certainly. My edit summary on the revert was "not a reliable, third-party source". Wikipedia requires statements, particularly controversial statements about living people to be backed up by reliable, third-party sources. Your source was a screenshot of what appears to be a Facebook post made by Langan himself, which is a primary source. Furthermore, "steemitimages.com" is not what we would generally consider to be a reliable source–while it's just an image, there's no editorial review on steemitimages.com to prevent someone from uploading doctored images, etc. You added it to the "Controversial views" section, but that would seem to be your own opinion that it is a controversial view. While I happen to agree with you, it is not up to editors such as you or me to determine which of Langan's views are "controversial"–that's a determination that needs to be made by a reliable, third-party source (newspaper, magazine, etc. with editorial review). For what it's worth, that particularly posting of Langan's about apes has been in the article in the past, and was removed a little while ago–you might be interested in reading the relevant discussions at the talk page archives (there are a few of them, you can search the page for "ape" or "Somalian"). I have no real objection to the content being re-added, but you must include quality sourcing to back it up. The sourcing that was previously used was not great, but even that was better than the steemitimages screengrab–that is completely unacceptable as a source for a controversial statement about a living person (see WP:BLP). Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay. Well an editorial review doesn't necessarily make something reliable. But I understand, if these are the rules. The screenshot was part of an explanatory blog post by the way. I didn't have any knowledge about a previous attempt. I guess using the actual facebook post via facebook isn't considered a reliable source either then? Thanks for the feedback.

Linking to the actual Facebook post would resolve any concern it might be a doctored image, but would not help with the fact that it's a primary source. You will need sourcing that is both third-party and reliable. And you're quite right that there are other factors that go into determining reliability beyond whether there is editorial review–WP:RS has the full story. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Intelliname

Just ignore them and wait for a different admin to decline the unblock request and revoke TPA. Also, I'm sorry you have to go through this (threats, Twitter attack by the CEO, etc.), so much for a "professional company". --MrClog (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, MrClog. I don't think they are trolling, for what it's worth—they just don't understand Wikipedia. Editors like this are common on a handful of articles I am active in editing (Gab (social network) is another good example). Perhaps it is futile but I try to explain how Wikipedia works and that we are not just a bunch of Epik-haters trying to trash the company. Sometimes it gets through to one of them, but usually not. However they are often not bluffing when they say that there are others watching the interactions that happen on Wikipedia, and it would be nice if some of them see reason, if not the editor themself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get in such an echochamber, identifying reason becomes very difficult. “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” I commend your attempts, though and let's hope you convinced some of the people looking at the talk page. --MrClog (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. --MrClog (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that probably explains the two subsequent editors who showed up to the page (since protected). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, never heard of them until now. Talk about the Streisand effect. Useight (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you-know-who's abuse-reporting facility has gone off in completely the wrong direction. (Er, this is User:Pinkbeast, albeit burned out on editing, not one of your harassers being snarky...)
Oh, you're back! Or Twitter was just having a Moment. 81.187.27.126 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good to hear from you! Sorry to hear you're burned out. Thanks for the words of support :) Not sure what you're referring to with respect to Twitter—if I was showing up as a deleted account or something, I haven't made any changes so it's probably a Twitter issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


DoTW Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is for your response to the Epik stuff. Not many would be as patient as you've been. Darthkayak (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved message from Garett805

Thanks for the kind words and editing info sent GorillaWarfare. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Garett805 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Garett805: Certainly! Welcome to Wikipedia! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put on your thinking cap...

Pinging to WPO LINK. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You folks sure know how to make the best of a bad (or at least bizarre) situation. :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry to learn of what you have been going through. If there is anything we can do to help, please let us know. The editing community has your back. Is WMF helping? If you don't want to talk about it here, I understand. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BC Sheriff Badge.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BC Sheriff Badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A pie for you!

i love your edits and i apprate you and i am gratefull that you are here everyday almohannad 20067 05:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

I just submitted my first sock puppet investigation. Since you are an admin, I wanted to ask you (or any other admins who may be watching) if I did it correctly. It is here. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: It does appear to be submitted correctly -- it's showing up fine at WP:SPI and all that. It looks like both accounts are blocked (the named account four years ago, the IP just recently for edit warring). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing it. IP is blocked for 3 days, but I suspect it will continue edit-warring once unblocked. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. There is also always WP:ANEW if it's an edit warring issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Join WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia

Hi GorillaWarfare! I am Galendalia and I have revived the WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia. I noticed that you signed up at some point to be a participant and as I am reviving this project, one of my tasks is to get the participant list in order. Would you please go to the Participants List and add your name and language(s) you speak? If you are already there and do not want to be, please remove yourself. If you want to remain, please put remain next to your name. If I do not see anything, I will move you to the inactive participant list. I am putting a timeline of 7 days on this action to help keep things moving along. It would also be great if you would be willing to join the task force for Pronunciation that would be awesome, as there are troublesome words we run into.

Thank you for considering joining us. If you decide to leave, I will be sad to see you leave as so many people have done a great job on the recordings and any work you have done makes a significant difference.

Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email to Arbcom

Hi, I sent an email to ARBCOM a short while ago and I'm just wondering if there's any action on it. It seemed pretty straight forward to me. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I'm actually inactive on ArbCom right now, so I would recommend either emailing ArbCom again or contacting someone who is active. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, OK, thanks, I'll try another person or emailing again, but it didn't work the first time so not sure the second time would work either. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I know I've told you this off-wiki but I feel the need to say it on-wiki: thanks for your work diligently updating the Massachusetts COVID-19 articles and templates. You're awesome, consistent, and on your shit. <3 Keilana (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<3 Thanks to you as well for your tireless work on the COVID articles! GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP jumping around

The IP that you just blocked, 83.220.173.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has now hopped onto 45.117.160.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with this edit about I AM 10000 BOWLING YOU. Your assistance is very much appreciated. — MarkH21talk 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Blocked the new IP too. I'll watch your talk page and Lê dynasty in case it continues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Unfortunately, the IP doesn't realize that it's not very appropriate to go bowling during the pandemic! — MarkH21talk 03:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Groypers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Walsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Yeah baby!

Great work at Incel! Guy (help!) 00:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just decided to go for it and nominated it for GA today, if you have any copyedits or suggestions before the formal review happens :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I stepped on one of your edits. I went to explain the quote and didn't notice you had shortened it. I'll leave it to you for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostFrancis (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Doesn't look like any of my edits were affected, and your change looks fine to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud you in being able to stomach such a topic, but it's one that unfortunately needs to be put in the spotlight. Good work! Nihlus 16:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Incel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Incel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aven13 -- Aven13 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi GorillaWarfare, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Incel

The article Incel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Incel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aven13 -- Aven13 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sum41StarWars Comment

If you don't do it already, I would delete all editsummaries of this user. ^^ --TheImaCow (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, but thanks for the heads up! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh...cool :D --TheImaCow (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Just noting this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... Could be. Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan

Actually, the drawing and Jimi Hendrix stuff comes from one of Langan's brothers. Gladwell seems to have interviewed at least 2 of Langan's siblings as a check against Langan's own presentation of himself. At various points in his narrative he includes confirming comments from one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thank you for that additional info. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manosphere

Sorry for going off topic with Tiggy, I didn't mean to turn the talk page into an awful discussion about gender inequality. Tiggy's rant was truly terrible, I'm sorry I opened the door to that conversation. Bacondrum (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not your fault. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement? -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over three by a few hours, it appears. I have started a discussion on the talk page and tagged you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Just realized I misspelled your username, I've fixed it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator violating WP:3RR? Noted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Groypers

Notice

The article Groypers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not of encyclopedic relevance

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

TPW PROD was contested and removed by another editor - RichT|C|E-Mail 23:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audit Statistics Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics

Dear GWarfare,

Data generation which you post monthly now got quite stale. I would appreciate you update latest version monthly CUOS statistics May 2020 or delegate another quant girl or quant boy. I recommend my good friends Praxie <3, the talented professor and Tßaloney.

Future project I suggest is write code for Stats-Gathering-Bot, LOL!

--Π = 3.1415926535 8979323846 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arturo, G. Warfair is much better at the computer stuff than I am. I’ll let her keep doing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed quite talented, but none of my talents are worth a thing. Arturo, I do wonder about you. You should maybe come by and talk. We'll have some coffee and talk about college things. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made the update for May. June will have to wait til the end of the month, as usual. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of Main Room Magazine

Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to comment here last night. Thanks for pointing that out, that was indeed another account in the sockfarm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Progressive Front

Hey GW, do you think it's weird that moments after KumarVenati nommed Secular Progressive Front for deletion, TRUTH TELLER 0912 started deleting content? I also notice that both have edited around each other at a different article. I suspect socking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler alert, I think it's weird. Filled out SPI here. Enjoy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Ha, thanks! I was running the checks while you filled out the SPI. Should've commented here to say I was checking them, to save you the time of writing out the SPI. I've just commented on the SPI after blocking and tagging the two accounts—they are  Confirmed socks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast, thanks! It doesn't hurt to have an SPI. No biggie. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KumarVenati

Hello,

Would you agree that TPA access for KumarVenati should be removed. In their last unblock request (which I declined) they said they had been compromised. After looking at older edits, I don't believe this is the case, however, I thought I might raise this with you (as you ran the check). The last decline said that TPA would be removed if they kept on lying. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also on a side note, is revoking TPA altering the block for the purposes of the checkuser block policy? I would have thought so by the wording alter any block (as revoking TPA technically modifies the block). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Personally I don't think that revoking TPA is altering a CU-block, though if you do so it is probably worthwhile to add a note to the block to indicate that it's a CU block and that you're just adjusting the block settings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer (and also revoking TPA). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Bradley

Hi GorillaWarfare, hope you are well! Just a heads up, I saw that you protected and unprotected Noah Bradley a few days ago. There has been a steady amount of BLP violations and general disruption/vandalism since you unprotected the page. I requested page protection over at WP:RFPP but wanted to make sure you're aware. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the protection back on the page. At the time it seemed unwarranted (there were only a few edits, and I hadn't realized that the allegations that were added were true and could be sourced) but I agree that the spate of edits since show that the page needs protection anyway. Appreciate you dropping me a note! GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about sources

Hi GW, I had a quick question and figured I'd drop you a line. On list of neo-Nazi bands, there was a band removed last year that I think belongs. What constitutes proper proof that this band belongs on that page? Should I start a new section in the talk page, or just edit the article directly? In addition, I'm somewhat concerned over accidentally starting an edit war due to the page's history of edit wars, and the fact that this is a high profile band and some people may take issue with their labeling. Is there any kind of procedure I should follow? Thanks! 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3nk1namshub: Safest bet is always to start a discussion on the talk page first, however if there is extremely solid sourcing describing the band as neo-Nazi then I would personally make the edit directly (and include the source as an inline citation). You're going to need a reliable source such as an article published by a newspaper or magazine with a reputation for fact-checking—newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post, or magazines like Rolling Stone are good bets. If I'm not sure about the reliability of a source I often use the archive search box over at WP:RSN to see if there's been a past discussion over its reliability.
If you're still not sure, I'd be happy to take a look at the sourcing you have and give you my take on it, though I obviously can't speak for all of the editors of that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thank you for your help! 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of Kumar Venati?

Right after Kumar Venati's last block request was declined, the User:Raja Kumar 8121 was created and became active on the very same pages with the same behavior. Even their userpage looks like an exact copy of Kumar Venati's former userpage. I think they are waddling like a duck, would you please look into it? Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filed pro forma report at the SPI page. Blocked sock as a obvious. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Boogaloo page

I went and cataloged a variety of sources to make the point of "anti-government", so please go read and consider. MWise12 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Van Luc

Hello, I deleted some information because it is incorrect. I am a relative of Nguyen Van Luc. Katdmac5 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Katdmac5: The information was supported by a reliable source, so you will need to provide alternative sourcing that contradicts it in order to remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response, the book that was cited stated that Van Luc was “someone who had been seen to shoot down in cold blood a small child.” There is no proof to back up that statement anywhere historically. It has as much evidence a rumor. On the other hand, my grandfather who served in the war with his father Van Luc has told me that it is untrue so that is a more credible source than a story with no proof that was mentioned in a book. Katdmac5 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A book published by an academic publisher is generally considered to be a reliable source. I'm afraid what your grandfather has said is not usable as a source, as such things must be verifiable and published reputably. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I do have another edit but I’m new to editing and don’t know how to do it. Where it says “Nguyen van cu” it is linked to the wrong Nguyen Van cu. The difference between the names is that the correct one has a squiggle over the last “u” while the incorrect one has a slant inflection thing over the last “u.” The word is correct on this page but linked to the different man. I can prove this. Van Lucs son, Nguyen Van cu, as this page reads, did bomb the palace in 1962, and the wrong nguyen Van cu that is linked was executed in 1941. I don’t know how to change the link. Katdmac5 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Văn_Cử This is the correct one Katdmac5 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Katdmac5: I went ahead and made the change for you: [7] GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! I greatly appreciate it!!!! Katdmac5 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

monitoring an article

Hi, saw your name on the list of recently active admins. I'm about to turn in for the night but am concerned about the article Chanel Miller. Can you add it to your watchlist? I'm concerned about borderline disruptive editing occurring about a sensitive topic (sexual assault victims). Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enwebb: Sure thing. Not sure how much longer I'll be on either, but I'll watch it. Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, is that a violation of the username policy? My feeling is that it is disruptive, particularly with the redirect added that makes the connection explicit. Enwebb (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely questionable, and I'm not impressed with the repeated attempts to link to the article. A WP:UAA report might be worthwhile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Guettarda took care of it: [8] GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just like a hydra, I expect to see another head soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out through this (also, nice to meet you, I've seen your name around a lot!) Cheers, Enwebb (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a bit. Nice to meet you as well, and thanks for looking out for a sensitive BLP! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was another sock account from Architect 134 🙄 they seem to have a particular interest in this article, unfortunately... Enwebb (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Good to know for future reference. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Are images published (in reliable sources) considered reliable themselves?

I followed the recent Incidents discussion on contentious editing at the Boogaloo movement article in which the reliability of an image was questioned. The answer is—such an image is, even if the photographer is not an employee of the publisher or a professional photojournalist, subject to the editorial policies and fact checking of the publication. This is true for print and other publications that are themselves WP:RS. If publications were not careful to vet such images, their reputation would decline to the point of no longer being considered reliable sources. National publications and network television news tends to fall at one end of the scale, local at the other. I can't think of a source to support my statement above, but I did work in network television news, freelance and then staff. The question should be covered in journalism textbooks. ps. You've more patience than I. — Neonorange (Phil) 23:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello, i am Khrysvic and i was updating pages on behalf of Stephane N'ko Douala Bell who is the Nephew of Marilyne Douala Bell Khrysvic (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely well-deserved. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

George (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, other warfare :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are very inspiring :) George (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Gamma section on Gallaudet page

The section on Kappa Gamma is highly inflammatory, and contains multiple factual errors.

A true factual writeup would require multiple paragraphs, and primary sources would be thin. This would lead the entire page astray; the topic is Gallaudet University, not the details of a single Fraternity.

Deafeditor (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to suggest specific changes or point out erroneous statements in the page I would be happy to work with you at Talk:Gallaudet University. However, removing the section of the page wholesale as you were doing is not appropriate given the coverage in the Washington Post. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you a very Happy Birthday! May you get all the happiness in life :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TGU :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Every time I see you around, you're fighting the good fight, even when it's not what's popular. That's the sort of thing I strive for, and it's hard, so I just wanted to say that I appreciate you for doing that. – Frood (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very kind words of support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to echo the hoopy Frood here. You are a person of moral courage and I admire you for it.--Jorm (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

As a new admin I have been avoiding blocking users, preferring to concentrate on other tasks. However I am tempted to block user 174.74.226.192, who you blocked for 31 hours on 29 June. They do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia! Is there guidance somewhere on lengths of time to block for? What is the significance of 31 hours? Some guidance would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Looks like your instincts were correct—Mz7 placed another block, and I would've done the same. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Duration of blocks has some good guidance on block lengths. Generally speaking I will block 31 hours on a first offense, unless the user is a logged-in user who has never contributed productively in which case I will block indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. If they return to disruption shortly after the first block expires, I place blocks escalating in duration. The choice of duration then is somewhat of a judgment call—with IP addresses you have to be careful that you're not causing too much collateral damage, for example by blocking an IP or IP range with many other users on it. That can typically be determined by looking at the other contributions by the IP and seeing if any of them are constructive, looking at IP information using WHOIS tools (which will sometimes show if an IP is registered to a school, or if it's a mobile IP), and looking at the size of the IP range if you're rangeblocking.
As for 31 hours, that's what I usually default to for a first offense. I like it because it's around 24 hours, which I find to generally be a good balance of enough time for someone to lose interest in vandalism, but not so long you might be disrupting other potentially constructive users on the IP. I prefer 31 hours to 24 hours, though, because it helps prevent what I think of as situational vandalism, which often happens in schools—if a kid is in the same boring class or lunch hour every day at the same time, they might try to vandalize like they did the previous day, and a 31-hour block prevents that when a 24-hour block does not. Hope this helps! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks. There is a lot to learn. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Heh, the origin of the 31-hour block goes back to around 2005—see MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions/Archive 1#31 hour block?, where editors mostly used the same reasoning GorillaWarfare used, as well as Most importantly, 31 is a prime number, 24 is not. In this case, I blocked the IP for 2 weeks on their second offense, which is honestly a bit on the longer end than I usually do, but I thought it was okay in this case because looking at Special:Contributions/174.74.226.192, it seems that all of the edits there going back about a week are the same person, so it seemed that the IP was relatively static and wasn't going to change to an unrelated user very quickly. Mz7 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, didn't know about those origins! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, on a related note, do you want this page semiprotected to stop the trolls? You can do it yourself obvs, but some admins prefer to leave that to others. Guy (help!) 20:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have lost interest. I usually avoid semiprotecting my talk page when possible, but if it continues I will. Thanks for checking! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coding

Hello 😸🐹🐨 (Hi, I am kitties. ^__^), I would like to respectfully invite you to help me look into the issue I raised at the Reference Desk as I know you're good at coding. Thank you very much! --Deep humility (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)  [reply]

IP TPA

...I'd already revoked that from the range--or at least tried to. It's always irritating that you can't always see what's happened on the range from the individual talk page. Did you read that weird article about armed Black troops at Stone Mountain? And the run-in between a group of Black gun-toting activists running into Boogaloo dudes and admiring each other's guns, in Richmond? And the Boogaloos shouting down the white supremacists? I think it was an NPR story--pretty weird. Oh, my wife didn't know about these Boogaloos, which made me think I'm in some bubble where these groups are just overrepresented. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ope, didn't see you were blocking the range. Agreed, I wish rangeblocks would show up in the individual IP block logs.
I briefly read about the armed Black activists but I didn't hear about them running into boogaloo folks. Sounds surreal. Although given that I grew up in and have lived in New England my whole life, the idea of people just wandering around with rifles seems pretty surreal in general. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are too young to have seen them originally GW but Drmies and I grew up with these bugaloos which were fun :-) Is there anything from our past that won't be ruined by someone or other? Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 03:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of surreal! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know it :-) !!!!! MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I kind of grew up with this... Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fun Drmies though not as psychedelic :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arkwright logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arkwright logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
For your excellent work in improving Men Going Their Own Way. — Bilorv (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Groypers"

I changed the page "Groypers" because using "white nationalist" to describe a group is not only 1) unconfirmed and contested as Nicholas J. Fuentes has repeatedly denied the term "white nationalist" and 2) white nationalist is a pejorative as it has some kind of association or correlation with that of racism or even white supremacy. While you could say they are undoubtedly described as white nationalists, the Groypers are not entirely white nationalist in their being. At the very most they're far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalNate (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PalNate: The sourcing unequivocally describes Groypers as white supremacist or white nationalist. As for Fuentes denying it, well, he would, wouldn't he? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Violence committed by right wing people?

I'm curious, what are you basing this statement on? - "the DHS because Trump and others have been criticized (for example, by Politico) for blaming violence on left-wing protesters while much of it has been committed by right-wing people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo_sources#Conclusion

What right wing violence are you referring to? Or are you simply quoting Politico here, and that last statement about "right wing violence" isn't your own? MWise12 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The assessment is striking given the public emphasis President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have placed on alleged violence carried out by adherents of the left-wing ideology antifa, while refusing to specifically identify and denounce the far-right groups like boogaloo that have been charged in recent weeks for acts ranging from felony murder to terrorism." - Politico I was referring to criticism by Politico and others. Why do you ask? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I figured you might just be quoting them. "Far right groups like boogaloo" lol. Doesn't seem they understand what they're even talking about. MWise12 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

If you're going to have one in there, you kind of need two, after "far-right" and "anti-government", though one might argue that you might as well stick one after American. Or we could have some fun and, let's start counting, note that you are modifying "movement" with an adverb and a verbal, an adjective, an adverb and an adjective, an adjective and a noun, and another adjective. Ola, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🤯 GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...there's a Blazing Saddles joke in here somewhere, whose punchline is a variation of "you know...morons". I'm sure there's old white admins, older than me, who can craft that perfectly. Hey, thanks for writing that article; you're certainly catching all the flak for it. I appreciate it--I'm just sitting around writing up old African dances. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We all have our areas of interest! That's a very cool article, I learned something new today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, my wife didn't know about them boogaloo boys, so there you go. I'm teaching African lit this summer, and I'm preparing for class with my phone and the Wikipedia app on (all professors do that, haha). Thing is, half the things I want to look up don't have articles, as you can tell from all the recent stubs I've written up. And the sources aren't available, and existing articles are often in poor shape. I mean, compare Epic of Sundiata with the plethora of Canterbury Tales articles. Compare it to Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which doesn't even have sex or a car chase in it (I wish that Mike Christie got a degree in African history). In other words, that global divide, the underrepresentation on Wikipedia of the global south, it's very real. But yeah, douga, that was quite a surprise when I started digging through the few sources I could find. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article. As it happens I don't tend to write articles related to my work or my degree (computers and maths). It's more interesting learning about something else in order to write about it. And the Chronicle does have assassinations in it; does that count as exciting? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't tend to write articles related to my work or degree (computers), aside from some tech BLPs. I find writing (and reading) our more technical articles to be pretty unenjoyable... GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"exhaustively"

You sure you don't mean "exhaustingly"? It feels like every time I pop back into Wikipedia after a while, I see "Talk:Incel‎ ...‎ ‎GorillaWarfare (talk|contribs) ‎(→Blah blah blah: +)" on my watchlist. Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight, long after what I would've thought was humanly possible. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly both. Thanks for your helpful comments there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

Hello GorillaWarfare, I see that you think my edit on Azerbaijan's Wikipedia page is biased or not supported by the public. But I have put sources for everything that I wrote. These sources are reliable and neutral sources like the Corruption Perceptions Index and Human Rights Watch. So please review what you and others did to my edit that improved Wikipedia. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinar Zaito (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinar Zaito: No, if you'll read the note I left on your talk page, I warned you because you are currently edit warring. Please stop reverting the other editor's changes and instead discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Azerbaijan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your continued, and apparently indefatigable, defense of our content. You gave me a barnstar a looong time ago, which was a great encouragement in my early days - I expect you've got lots of these, but please accept another. GirthSummit (blether) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very kind note, and for your great work as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mIRC constantly disconnecting

Any idea how to fix it? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Hmm, I don't use mIRC myself, but I can try to help. Do you see any sort of error when it disconnects? Does it disconnect immediately after you connect or is there a period where you are connected? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only for a minute or two. No error messages. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. Do you have a shaky internet connection? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any signs of one, but I tried another client and had the same problems. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance! isaacl (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Alert

You may not be interested, but may want to be vaguely aware. I just closed a thread at DRN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia I don't recognize the troll. You might, or might not care. This appears to be someone who was trusted until 2016. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an LTA who pretends to be a former Wikipedian who sadly passed away in 2016: User:Kevin Gorman. Best to WP:RBI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 07:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas

I edited this page to remove a subjective descriptor of the organization being "deceptive." I didn't include any falsifications, simply moved editorialized verbiage. Your revision seems biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:6816:5A00:CD62:6B76:FE1A:63D9 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas' activities are widely described in reliable sources as deceptive. Feel free to begin a discussion at Talk:Project Veritas if you like, but please bring your own reliable sources that contradict that description. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Morgan talkpage

Hello! I noticed that the edit by Sammyprincess on 6 July 2020 at Talk:Richard K. Morgan removed several legitimate talk page comments. Since there have been intermediate edits, I can't simply undo their edit to restore the old comments. I am hesitant to try and do it manually, since there have been further legitimate edits since then (along with plenty of vandalism), but I wanted to bring it to an admin's attention. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PohranicniStraze: Thanks for pointing that out, I've restored the comments that were removed and cleaned up some disruptive ones that remained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Birthday

Happy First Edit Day, GorillaWarfare, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew there was a birthday committee! Thanks :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying hello

GorillaWarfare, while I only know you from some edits to the LGBT studies page, as I don't think you'd end up editing any of the pages I generally frequent (mostly about LGBTQ characters and shows), I thought I'd say hello. You are braver than most on here, as most people wouldn't post a picture of themselves on their profile and show their name. Personally, I'd be too terrified to do so and would not post any information that would tie me to my account. So, kudos for doing that, Molly. That's all and I hope you have a great day and rest of the week.

--Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying hi! I hope you also have a lovely week. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_17&oldid=1074960763"