Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 2

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

WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?!!

... I passed a test, what test?! --68.98.129.158 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I'll be getting an account! It will be Hello, I'm a Wikipedian![reply]

I'm sorry, I'm really confused as to what you're talking about. Can you try to explain? Thanks! -- GorillaWarfare talk 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Antanigosts of Naruto. WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?!! --68.98.129.158 (talk) (68.98.129.158) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I understand. It's referring to your test edit to List of Naruto antagonists. Also, please sign your posts. GorillaWarfare talk 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Now I understand,oh, and this is my new user page. Hope u like it! --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.129.158 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks good. I'd just like to suggest that you continue to edit on your account and not just from your IP. It makes things much easier for everyone. Also, regarding your userpage, it looks fine but just keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. Please also see WP:Sock puppetry, because your user page suggests that you have two registered accounts. -- GorillaWarfare talk 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Attacking Users???

What are you talking about?! I was asking him why he would remove something he has no idea about! How am i wrong? I never attacked him it was directed as a question. Please tell me how im wrong. --Mick Chester - Flyin Hawaiian (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying things such as "Do you even know what your talking about?" and "Third why are you removing something you know NOTHING ABOUT !?" are borderlining against Wikipedia's civility policy. Also, your use of caps definitely makes it sound like you're shouting at him. Don't worry too much about the warning -- it is simply a reminder to try to be more calm when discussing edit disputes. GorillaWarfare talk 05:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just upsetting to see something get pulled for no reason at all when he really had no right to pull it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyinhawaiian (talk • contribs) 05:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see his point of view in that the link is not necessarily relevant to the article, however I am not going to try to decide who is right or wrong in this dispute. I am merely entering in as a third party to request that you be more civil in your communication. GorillaWarfare talk 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Types of rape

I'm not really interested in the 3RR at this point. I don't need to prove that prison rapists aren't necessarily gay. That's just common sense. There's nothing controversial about what I added. 75.220.51.16 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the 3RR still applies. Violation of this can result in a 24-hour ban, and I will report you, and if necessary Trusilver, to the 3RR noticeboard. GorillaWarfare talk 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful

This revert and subsequent warning[1] was a good faith edit, if you look at it a little more closely. I have reverted the edit, please redact your warning. Trusilver 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you're correct. My fault, it definitely looked suspicious at a glance. GorillaWarfare talk 06:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, my finger was right over the revert button for a second until I looked a little closer. Trusilver 06:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have given him/her an edit test warning, though...? GorillaWarfare talk 06:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! Thanks for pointing that out. When I reverted it back to his version I accidentally hit the button one extra time and reverted his too. Hence the dangers of automated tools :) Trusilver 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards from Buster Pilot

Uh, u know the pilot episode for the Arthur spin-off, Postcards from Buster? Well, umm, shouldn't we make an article for that episode? --68.98.129.158 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm sort of confused as to why you're asking me this question... GorillaWarfare talk 17:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the pilot episode for Postcards from Buster was an episode that aired on Arthur, so, shouldn't there be an article for the pilot? --68.98.129.158 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the question, I just don't understand why I am the one you're asking. I don't really deal with that sort of stuff on Wikipedia that much, so I'm not the best person to ask. I see that you posted on the talk page for the existing article, which is a good way to go about it. However, I would say that according to WP:BOLD, you should put together an article (perhaps make a draft on your own subpages before submitting it as an article so that it is more finished and less likely to be speedily deleted as per db-nocontext) and then create the page. However, keep in mind that this advice is coming from someone with little expertise on the subject whatsoever, so for all I know there are specific guidelines regarding the notability of specific articles such as these. I tried looking around for something like these, but found none. So, I would say go ahead. In order to create a page, however, you'll need to make an account. GorillaWarfare talk 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Hello, I'm a Wikipedian!'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Hi, I'm a Scooby-pedian! (talk)

User_talk:OverlordQ

Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User_talk:OverlordQ, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Q T C 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize -- I guess when I posted that I must have somehow erased his comment. I assure you I didn't do so intentionally. GorillaWarfare talk 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Do u think <!-- Please do NOT edit here, if you do you are a vandel --> is a good thing to put on my page for a new users test? Thanks for the answer! (O, and can you answer on my talk? Thanks again) --Hi, I'm a Scooby-pedian! (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own sandbox!

Hey, I created my own sandbox, too, and I made a section just for you! Here's the link: User:Hello, I'm a Wikipedian!/Sandbox --Hi, I'm a Scooby-pedian! (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Hello, I'm a Wikipedian!'s talk page.
Message added 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Hi, I'm a Scooby-pedian! (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the message for me on your talk page... Where is it? GorillaWarfare talk 03:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

A good edit to Tesla is considered vandalism? Get bent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.66.230 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stick up for GorillaWarfare here. Your edit was actually reverted because it contained a link to Youtube, a website that is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. For links that are not allowed on Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:External links. XLinkBot (the bot responsible for removing such links) did try to warn you as well and explain this in much fuller detail on your talk page but I notice you just reverted the bots edits --5 albert square (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I've changed the warning to the spam warning. However, it's still inappropriate to add to the article, as you have been warned many times. Also, please see WP:CIVIL regarding the personal attack you made above. Also, thank you to 5 albert square. GorillaWarfare talk 02:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Brett

Please keep an eye on developments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anwar Brett#Anwar Brett as i believe the WP:N U brought up there has been met and that the search suggested there was significantly misleading as i have responded. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I've changed my opinion there. GorillaWarfare talk 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank U for your response with speed above and beyond... . Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Talk:Nigel Levings.
Message added 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Non-Dropframe talk 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One little favor

Can you ask an admin to delete this article? It's copied off the original. --Hello, I'm a Wikipedian! (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's actually not copied off the original -- they new one is significantly longer. Someone has suggested that the two articles be merged, so they should not be suggested for deletion. However, you should know that you don't need to ask me to ask an admin to delete an article. If you read WP:DEL you can see the different types of deletion. Basically, you can either tag an article for speedy deletion if it fits the criteria, you can list it on the articles for deletion page if you think its deletion will be contested, or you can propose deletion if the article doesn't fit speedy deletion criteria but you think it won't be a controversial deletion. Hope that helped! Definitely post here if you have any more questions. GorillaWarfare talk 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --HIAW! :) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome

Hello, and welcome to WikiProject Stagecraft!

Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list! Our goal is to make Wikipedia the finest, most comprehensive resource of theatre topics available online. As a project member, you might like to introduce yourself on our talk page and maybe add the project membership userbox to your user page.

If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and browse our page of useful templates. When you have a moment, please take some time to review our article structure guidelines for stagecraft articles, which give a handy guide to sections you should try to include in articles about theatre. If you would like suggestions about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Project to do list.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing!

  • Please note that the WikiProject is considered inactive but you are still welcome to help edit and create articles relating to stagecraft.


Thankyou

Thankyou for reverting the edit made to Rebecca Robinson (Neighbours), those types of edits often go unnoticed, big help. =) RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course! I'm not sure if you have rollback rights, but if you enjoy reverting vandalism you should definitely consider requesting them. If you do get them, you can install a program called Huggle, which makes finding vandalism very simple. That's how I reverted that edit. GorillaWarfare talk 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

can you give the example for my personnel attacks? thanks Blablaaa (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. On Talk:Operation Charnwood, you make several attacks. This edit accuses an editor of "deliberately wasted the time of editors and concealed this with your " i dont want to cooperate bla"" when he/she was trying to simply back out of a dispute s/he thought was getting out of hand. You can see EnigmaMcmxc reacting to the earlier edits, too, refusing to cooperate with what s/he calls blackmail and threats. Twisting his/her words to convey him/her as uncooperative is certainly uncivil. Later, you accuse Chaosdruid of presenting "useless information", lying, and harassing you. S/he shows no evidence of doing so. I see you went back and rephrased to make it less rude, which is good. I just wanted to point out that the argument was getting heated before it got out of control. GorillaWarfare talk 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so whats the correct civil words to say that somebody lies and waste the time of others? I can understand that its not appropriate to say " you are dumb " or whatever. But i really wonder that people can lie and its forbidden to call it lying. And by the way the words against enigma were proven correct later... . Enigma is always responding until he noticed that his points are proven wrong then he dont responds because hes not able to admiting hes wrong. Finally we saw i was correct and he wasted the time of several editors because he simply didnt want to admit he was wrong. Thats the definition of wasting time. Had he simple said" yeah lets change it to something better" everything would be fine. Wikipedia could be far more effective Blablaaa (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And trust me, the editor did say the untruth ( dont know why i cant use the word lying for it ) several times . Blablaaa (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the word that I found issue with. I just found no instance of him intentionally lying or wasting other peoples' time, and when he backed out of the argument he seemed justified in doing so. However, whether or not you feel that the warning was justified, just let it serve as a reminder to be civil and leave it at that. GorillaWarfare talk 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I am not the only editor finding your comments to be uncivil. Reading through the discussion at your post on the NPOV noticeboard, several editors express frustration at your comments. Example: 1 GorillaWarfare talk 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Coercorash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy keep

If you change your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jersey College for Girls, I'll speedy keep. Looks like a valid stub now. — Timneu22 · talk 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, s/he has done a good job of improving the stub and referencing. I've withdrawn my vote. GorillaWarfare talk 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Mans crash

if your around please try and redirect to correct page thank you. --8name8 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've done so. That is something you are able to do, if you need to, though. Instructions can be found here. GorillaWarfare talk 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Crighton

Cameron Crighton is being vandalised a lot this afternoon, should it be portected for only established editors?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but all of the vandalism is really coming from User:81.178.237.114. I'll keep an eye on the page and revert any more vandalism by him. He's on his vandalism-3 template, so if he does it twice more I'll report him to WP:ARV. GorillaWarfare talk 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for that and getting back to me so fast. =) RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I've given him a level four warning for another vandal edit to the page, and am now keeping an eye on his contributions to in case he vandalizes again. GorillaWarfare talk 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved)

Thanks for the welcome! Looking forward to helping the community. Sparklegg (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I moved this comment -- it was sort of within another. And of course! I hope you have as much fun here as I do. Here are some useful links, if you like: Help:Contents/Getting started, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Feel free to ask me any questions you may come up with, or write {{helpme}} on your talk page. GorillaWarfare talk 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, that was my mistake. Still trying to learn the rules/etiquette around here. Just trying to add and contribute where I can! Sparklegg (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's a lot to learn at the beginning! Luckily, most of the community is very nice and understanding. As for your contributions, I keep seeing your additions to Mark Zuckerberg while I'm reviewing and they're quite well done -- great job on the formatting and citations! GorillaWarfare talk 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Beaming smile* Sparklegg (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference on France

Hello :)

I'm sorry for my French reference, I didn't know that I had to translate it. But I will try to do it next time (it might be not easy all the time, because I'm French and my English is not wonderful, but I will make efforts). Thank you :)

Celyndel (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, some of the Wikipedia policies are a little bit obscure. Is there any chance you can go back and translate the citation? (Link here if you need.) GorillaWarfare talk 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here I hope this is a correct translation. Thank you for preventing me for this rule. :) Celyndel (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You'll see I added to the talk page comment. I appreciate your hard work! GorillaWarfare talk 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem :) But infortunately, I cannot translate all the French references because some words are very specific vocabulary ... Celyndel (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I completely understand. Do remember, however, that if possible, English references are preferred. GorillaWarfare talk 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ! I am currently writting a section on the French cuisine. Could you correct my possible errors ? :D Celyndel (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I see the section you're working on. I've already edited a little bit. Feel free to remind me to check it if you make any more major revisions. GorillaWarfare talk 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I LOVE French food... (and I took 2 years in French language)... I may be able to help, if you want of course. Tommy! [message] 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure Celyndel would appreciate the help! Perhaps put a talkback on Ceylndel's userpage -- I'm not sure if s/he is watching this page. GorillaWarfare talk 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a guy ... :) Maybe I should make my personnal page, but I will see it later. Yes, of course Tommy, I would be really happy if you would like to help me ! Every help is welcomed. :) Feel free to add informations or to modify my section if you thinks it needs it. I'm a uite tired now, so I'm going to sleep. We will work on this paragraph tomorrow if you have the time okay ? Celyndel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I just like to be careful, haha. People get it wrong with me all the time, so I stay intentionally vague. GorillaWarfare talk 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gorilla Warafre ! :) Did you see Tommy ? I should maybe write him a message on his talk page about the French cuisine, don't you think ? I think he could help me greatly on this section, but maybe I could translate the section "Gastronomie" on the french article of France, and see later with him what we can add together. What do you think ? Celyndel (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea! Go for it, he seems willing. Best of luck! GorillaWarfare talk 12:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Recent changes Barnstar
Thank you for so swiftly clearing out the paragrah from the John Mayer article. Edits like that one so often go overlooked, but they make Wikipedia go 'round.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! GorillaWarfare talk 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Serwan Baban

Hello GorillaWarfare. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Serwan Baban, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: vice-chancellor of a university--basically the chief exec. Thank you. —fetch·comms 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was not aware that that was automatic notability. GorillaWarfare talk 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to butt-in, it's probably not automatic notability, but it's questionble enough that it is probably not eligible for speedy. You should probably AfD it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about butting in! Sounds good, I'll put together an AfD right now. GorillaWarfare talk 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper warning

I believe this warning was probably inappropriate. While Senorita96 (talk · contribs) has very likely overinflated the significance of BUNT, the band's logo, as uploaded at File:BUNT BAND.jpg, is not a hoax. The band exists (at least in their own mind) and they do have a logo. It is probably that no one cares about the logo, but that doesn't make the logo a hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not the band actually exists, stating that the band's singles spent 5 and 7 weeks on the top of Serbian charts, were declared "the best song in 2008", earned €100,000, etc. would make the article a hoax, correct? GorillaWarfare talk 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is likely a hoax, yes. But that doesn't mean the band doesn't exist, just that they are not nearly as significant as this user would have us believe. The webs.com page actually does list the band's members, and their "discography". Whether this is a hoax, or just a bunch of tweens trying to have some fun, can't really be determined. Certainly the article deserves to be deleted, but tagging the album art as a hoax may be a bit over the top. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article deserves to be deleted, why leave the artwork if it has no further use on Wikipedia? GorillaWarfare talk 14:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article would already have been deleted anyway, as there was no copyright information, and without a linked article, there would be no fair use rationale. Marking it as a hoax just seemed to be piling on. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean image, not article? The image has already been deleted per the notice, however, so I guess the argument is moot anyway. I do see your point, though, and will keep it in mind for future reference. Cheers! GorillaWarfare talk 14:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Route M4 (Manhattan)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Route M4 (Manhattan), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route M4 (Manhattan). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure if you meant to warn me, as I just reverted because he kept reverting the deletion templates. I will, however, be happy to vote in the AfD. Cheers! GorillaWarfare talk 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a warning, just a notification. Please note that the removal of a PROD tag (except a BLP PROD) should never be treated as vandalism. It merely means that the article is going to AfD instead. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks! GorillaWarfare talk 02:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at YumeChaser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your signature

It's too big. Please change it. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By which standards? GorillaWarfare talk 20:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the standard that you will find by clicking on the words "too big" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did look. It is not blinking or scrolling, it's not influencing the text around it, it's not so small that it's difficult to read, it's readable by those who are color blind as far as I know, and it doesn't have horizontal rules. It doesn't contain images, even unicode characters. Furthermore, it's not taking up more than two or three lines. So according to those I see no reason there's a problem with it. GorillaWarfare talk 23:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first bullet point of the section that I linked says, "avoid markup such as <big> and <font size="3">(or more) tags (which produce big text)". I have no idea what markup you're using, but whatever it is it produces big text. Just look at your last comment - the signature causes the spacing between the last two lines to be larger than that for the other lines, making it more difficult to read than it would be otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the markup and changed one thing, but I don't believe it looks any different... GorillaWarfare talk 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better to me, thanks. If you're not seeing the difference then maybe the effect is different on different browsers - on my Firefox 3.6.8 there's a vast difference in size. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah, must be something like that. Thanks for letting me know! GorillaWarfare talk 21:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!


Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
  • Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
  • Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
  • The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
  • The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
  • Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
  • The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
  • The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
  • The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.


Gold Star Award

Gold Star Award Leaderboard
Articles Words 5k+ Articles
1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13)
2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8)
3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7)
4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6)
5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reversion of a vandal, you warned him, he reoffended

Hi GW, you recently undid vandalism to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emir_Spahi%C4%87&action=history, caused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AirSledge - he ignored the warning and went much further, causing me to have to revert to the same page you did. The question is, what action ought to be taken now? --Philbradley (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see others have reverted him without warning. I can take care of it if you like -- I'll give him a level 4 vandalism template and remind the users who didn't warn him to please do so in the future. GorillaWarfare talk 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lisa Williams

I wasnt really attacking him/her regarding the Lisa Williams article (Hmpzzz!) Do you know if Lisa can see dead people too? I have psychic powers too you know, i can see the future! Send all these "Lisa Williams" to Finland and they will all be locked in jails for being scam artists!

See WP:ATTACK. You were unarguably attacking that user. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By Finnish standards that wouldnt even be seen as an attack, but if that user felt bad about it tell him or her that im sorry (Not sure if my message got through), thats the way we talk here. Deal with it. Commie Soviet Union pigs had to learn the hard way too in WW2 between Finland and the evil empire. Also deal with the fact that all Lisa Williams had been sent to prison if these fucking hustlers had plotted shit like that in Finland.

AfD nominations

Just wanted to say that I appreciate working with you on AfDs today. I use each issue as a learning experience. Although we may have disagreed on some nominations, I respect your comments and appreciate the feedback. I learned a lot today. Cindamuse (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you! Although we seem to disagree on the issue regarding Lynn Sonberg, I really do appreciate you staying calm and civil. I hope we can come to agree on this, but even if we don't, I'm sure we both will have learned a lot regardless. As for the other AfD on Fred Graver, I'm glad you caught my mistake -- it was a careless one on my part. Cheers! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib

Hi! I saw you voted to delete the article. The AfD closed as "no concensus". I'm asking you for guidance on what you think should be done with the article. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when a deletion discussion is decided as "no consensus", the default is to keep it. I would suggest trying to improve the article so as to solve some of the problems mentioned in the discussion (add citations from notable sources, etc.) Don't move the article or merge it with another, as that was not decided. You can see WP:RELIST regarding relisting the article for deletion. Good luck, and feel free to come to me if you have any more questions, etc. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it can be relisted? I don't think it can. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I guess I wasn't clear there. I thought you were implying that you wanted to relist. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 00:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was just asking for your opinion... Needless to say I'm unsatisfied with the AfD's outcome... I just don't understand how this qualifies as "encyclopedic". Maashatra11 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. It's good to see individual editors' opinions -- often they have great suggestions! Perhaps sources proving that it's not against WP:NOTNEWS can be found -- those proving its long-lasting effects. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 00:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you prove something wil have a long-lasting effect in the future anyway ? WP:CRYSTAL applies here...Maashatra11 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the event happened several years ago. Perhaps finding recent references regarding it would be useful. Crystal doesn't really apply, as there isn't really speculation in the article... — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 00:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a normal article, yet I found it moving. We should at times think outside the box. This article is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hasnul amri aman zainuddin

Salting, maybe, but I'll start by blocking the accounts and see whether that's enough. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for the page in New Page patrol. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Here's your free T-shirt!

GorillaWarfare/Archive 2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!

It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • New admin school
Administrators' Noticeboard • Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
Administrators' Noticeboard for 3RR • Suspected sock puppets

Your admin logs:
2 blocks • 2 deletions • 2 moves • 2 protects • 2 uploads

Enjoy being an administrator! I expect that you do a good job, unless you want to make me look like a failure. :) (X! · talk)  · @931  ·  21:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I shall certainly try my best, haha! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Connormah 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you met User:NuclearWarfare? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not. Funny that our usernames are a bit similar! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your adminship is another arrow in the quiver. You should be proud. You'll be a great asset to the project. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say bye to articles and hello to reforming vandals

Congrats on becoming an admin. Some people, who formerly wrote many articles, have found almost no time to write text: the lure of interacting with other users seems to soak all of their free time. Then, when you have convinced more former vandals, to repent and forswear thy evil ways, to transform into being helpful, anti-vandals, then that might be an even bigger reason to focus on revising people's minds, rather than just text.

If you want a new article, I'm not sure the best tactic: perhaps you could schedule time for article-writing, but also, maybe inspire others to write new articles for you (Mozart seems to have had a lot of helpers(!) penning his music manuscripts, beginning with his father writing Mozart's early compositions: perhaps Mozart was running an early "wiki-music" in the 1700s. Hence, Mozart's Requiem.). Never forget: there are 12 million registered users, if you need a few people to help you. Just ask.

Above all, I want to remind you of those former vandals who have become valuable editors of WP, like former convicts who help law enforcement solve new crimes. Don't let the backlog of admin activities drain you of being human. Also, remember that many bot or admin canned-template messages are rather caustic, so perhaps, you might create your own copy/paste standardized messages which could ask people to explain their intentions, rather than command them to "stay in their place" as underlings of the Wiki-machine. Treat other people as "errant brothers" who need guidance to avoid foolishness, rather than dismiss them as insects. I have seen troubled people try to conform to Wikipedia styles, but when they made mistakes, then some admins insulted them, and guess what? ...those insulted people reverted, right back, to their original antics, as active enemies of Wikipedia.

Anyway, congratulations, again. Welcome to the next level. I suspect you will become one of the very best admins. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Perhaps this is a case where it is fortunate that I'm not a major content editor anyway! I hope to not burn out or become drained of being human, haha! As for the rest of your advice, I definitely appreciate it. I'll try my hardest to remain human when dealing with vandals, and encourage reformation as opposed to continued vandalism. Thanks for your advice! — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
There are currently
2,479 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
— ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Your RFA

Congrats. You deserve it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Industries

Hi, can you look over your close of this? The keep votes were all weak (either explicitly so or because they did not address the article's notability concerns) and two of them were from single purpose IPs. ThemFromSpace 07:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the fence about that one, and still am, but I decided to go with no consensus. Although the arguments for delete were valid, I felt that some of the keep arguments were as well. The single purpose IPs arguments were not entirely invalid, and shouldn't be written off purely because they are single-purpose IPs. The idea to move the article is not a terrible one, if sources can be found, or the article could be merged. The page is sourced, although work needs to be done to make sure that the references are verifiable. I'm not entirely sure what point User:Carrite was trying to make, but I didn't really include that comment in my decision. Although the page is certainly borderline, I don't know if the consensus agreed. I take it you believe it should be deleted? — GorillaWarfare talk 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on passing your RfA. I'm sure you realised that there was nothing personal in my oppose. It was more a criticism of the system. Perhaps you have even noticed from my regular participation in debates on the process that I am an advocate for some positive change, particularly in finding ways of making it less humiliating for all concerned. Now that you are an admin yourself, maybe you would like to join in those discussions and venture your opinions and suggestions. Take care. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! And no worries, I didn't think it was personal. However, I'm not sure how much participation you'll see from me at RfA... I try to keep out of the drama side of the project. Maybe at some point I'll get my feet wet in that side of Wikipedia, but not at the moment. Thanks though! — GorillaWarfare talk 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

You asked me to provide a reliable source for my edit of Prophet Muhammad page, it is not my concern if you do not believe the Qur'an to be reliable, yet that is the only book Islam follows, and Prophet Muhammad is the Islamic Prophet, nothing can determine the truth about him as the Qur'an can, it is insulting to not only me, but 1.5 billion muslims out there that only fads are written about our beloved Prophet, yet when we try to correct it using the Holy Qur'an as out source, we are told it is not a 'reliable source' we do not think of any of the sources provided as reliable as you might note most if not all were written about Islam extremists, is it wise to allow only those who are anti-Islam to provide sources, I will tell you this, you will not find a better source out there then the Holy Qur'an itself, so correct me if I am wrong, but it is very racist of you to delete edits on the Prophet of Allah's page which are referred from only the Book of Allah, the Holy Qur'an. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryffinclaw (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 August 2010 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that the Qur'an is unreliable. However, you have not cited any sources for your edit. Please see WP:Citing sources. Furthermore, you are beginning to get into an edit war. You have reverted the page three times, which violates WP:3RR. Also, please sign your posts by adding ~~~~ after them. — GorillaWarfare talk 21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i note that, but, i would like you make a formal complaint that the page has misinformation with sources only from unreliable links. the reason why I say unreliable is because i have taken the time to read word for word what is on those pages, unfortunately its lies, do you realise that due to these lies Islam is now being misunderstood, and we are subjected to racist attacks daily, i would like to raise a formal complaint against this page, if wikipedia do not look into this situation and correct the page and misinformation and evil intent links remain i will have no choice to take it further as a legal religious right for misinformation spread on the internet about Prophet Muhammad, wiki prides itself as a 'reliable' information website yet it is currently only posting fictional stories and one sided links about our beloved Prophet, this is an insult to me, to Prophet Muhammad and to 1.5 billion muslims out there. Not allowing the Qur'an as a reliable source is discrimination against our holy book, it is also racist against our religion. Gryffinclaw (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please see WP:No legal threats. If you continue to threaten litigation, you will be blocked while legal threats are outstanding. Secondly, I will not file a complaint for you, but if you would like seek dispute resolution yourself, you may post on the article talk page, file a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, or file a request for mediation if necessary. However, please see WP:NPOV for information about editing with a biased point of view. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked by the way for 3RR; the legal threats and POV issues don't help the issue. Just giving you the heads up. Jmlk17 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that. I hope he calms down a bit in the next 72 hours, but he seems pretty upset. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Why did you undid my edit? I just said hiya to Tango. Can't a guy be friendly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.252.52 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on that one -- I mistook it for vandalism. As you can see, I undid the reversion almost immediately, and removed the warning from your page. Sorry about that! — GorillaWarfare talk 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized the reason I mistook it for vandalism was that it was on his user page. You need to post talk page comments on his user talk page, which can be found at User talk:Tango. I have moved yours for you. — GorillaWarfare talk 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my comments mate. I wasn't familiar with the policies. I just wanted to ask Tango about some things ... I'll remember to post on his talk page in the future. sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.211.56 (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. While I'm at it, though, I'd suggest you sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. Makes things easier, on the whole. Also, you should really consider creating an account. You seem to be editing from a dynamic IP, which makes it quite difficult for other editors to know which talk page to post on in order to contact you. Creating an account will also allow all of your edits to be attributed to you. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Quite a few open reports. Could you clean up with your shiny new mop? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 05:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the heads up! — GorillaWarfare talk 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Actually ... where you just reverted yourself on blocking the IP, its most recent vandalism had in fact been recent, this just now ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portland_Trail_Blazers&diff=prev&oldid=380751300 --Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked on the 19th for 31 hours. He then made that one edit to Portland Trail Blazers that you mention, and was given a 4-im warning. However, he has not edited since that warning. — GorillaWarfare talk 06:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. I think I see the reason for my confusion ... it does not appear that mention was left of the block on the 19th on the IP's talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I blocked and then immediately unblocked, haha. Those block templates are nifty things... — GorillaWarfare talk 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Good work. Not sure I'm a fan of the rule, but it does I guess limit us in the ordinary course to blocking them for re-vandalizing shortly after their block lifts ... as long as they wait 24 hours ... in effect, they get one freebie.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could see it that way. I tend to like second (or third, I suppose) chances, though. Makes it harder for them to complain! — GorillaWarfare talk 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right ... not to belabor, and of course mine is just an opinion, but I think after an editor has had his warnings, and been blocked, and then engaged in clear vandalism within a week after in his very next edit, why he has had multiple warnings (and a block...which serves to warn him as well) already ... In essence, I view a block as having at least the same "warning" effect as a final warning. If we were to give a final warning, and five days later there were to be vandalism, we would block ... so .... anyway, just philosophizing. Thanks for your good and helpful work.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about admins

Hi! I'm starting an empirical research on "Gender and votes in requests for adminship" and, for this, we would need to know the gender of the admins.

We have tried different methods such as looking for the template User:UBX/male and User:UBX/female but only 4 admins use it. We have also used the API for getting the gender field in the profile but out of 1744 admins only around 400 have filled this field. And we would benefit for having a larger sample, ideally all the admins.

So we were thinking about writing a message on user talk page of admins asking if they want to write their gender. I'm writing to you as one of the 4 admins who has the User:UBX/female template in the user page ;)

Do you think this is ok, or you would suggest other ways?

Thanks! --phauly (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me... Although be sure to be understanding if a user does not want to divulge that information. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind reply! We are going to start and I'll let you know results! Thanks! --phauly (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Hi GW, just to let you know about a typo on your user page: guerrilla is written with 2 r. --Pgallert (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! Definitely missed that one. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at MJ94's talk page.
Message added 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
) MJ94 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

GorillaWarfare has been made a member of the Order of the Mop,
for their work as an admin and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,

Kind regards and happy editing,
MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a userbox version go here.

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! — GorillaWarfare talk 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.245.213.213&diff=cur

Please mind your own business —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.213.213 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about block at User_talk:68.236.155.129

You blocked this user for "persistent vandalism," but no vandalism has come from this IP recently. There were warnings on the talk page about vandalism, but those were in error. In addition to the mistaken warning templates, several of this editor's contributions have been reverted (again, not entirely appropriately), causing the editor to be extremely argumentative and to run afoul of 3rr, so perhaps a block is still in order, but there was no vandalism. I'm bringing this to your attention in case it would cause you to reconsider the length of the block or the block itself. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During that review, be sure to note the repeated legal threats at User talk:Df747jet. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those might warrant an even longer block. In that case, though, would a note about it at User_talk:68.236.155.129 be appropriate? Thanks for taking a look. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see the points that you have made, but I feel like the block is still in order and that the duration is justified. The edit warring consisted of him repeatedly ([2] [3] [4]) removing references from the first paragraph with no explanation for this. This definitely violated 3rr. Furthermore, he violated the BLP policy by adding in negative information about the individual without a source [5]. Saying he is a convicted criminal is a bit harsh. According to this, his criminal offense is punishable by a less than $1000 fine -- he "led a group of six supporters who broke into the palace the evening of Aug. 15, 2008, planning to place Akahi briefly on the palace throne." And furthermore, when Falcon8765 removed the citation for his birth date (a citation that the blocked user himself was repeatedly removing), the blocked user put it back in. This last edit seems to me that the user was just editing for the sake of being disruptive.
That seems quite accurate and complete! I'll just note that I think the editor's removals of sources may have been at least partially inadvertent and due to copying the section from the article and pasting into the edit textarea, see the unlinked "[1]" and "[2]" after this edit, but I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion or anything. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I'm quite concerned by the repeated legal threats that this user keeps making. He seems to have a tendency to ramble on about ArbCom complaints that he's going to file, but these often have hints at legal complaints as well. See [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. He has also made hints at socking: [11]. Frankly, a 1-month block seems pretty mild to me. Do you think we should go further? — GorillaWarfare talk 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, due to the legal threats, it should be indefinite? The threats seemed conditional, so I'm not sure. Thank you again for your consideration, ErikHaugen (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be away from my computer for a few hours, but we should definitely address this. I'll check in when I get back. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that it does need to go further. Looking back at the talk page and contribution history it's pretty clear the same user has had this IP address since at least April. And the No Legal Threats guideline is pretty clear about what action to take. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: a legal threat is a legal threat. I have changed the block to 1 year. I can't indefinitely block him, as it is an IP account and therefore the block could affect other users in the future. However, he is blocked until he unambiguously revokes all legal threats. If this continues a year from now, he can be blocked again. — GorillaWarfare talk 21:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this and updating the block info. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's what I'm here for! Keep an eye on your talk page, I'll be leaving something there soon. — GorillaWarfare talk 22:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what Erik said, and thanks for the consideration for IP users. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that sounded scary. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Porter

Hi Gorilla,

I just got back from my wikibreak. Thank you for notifying me about the re-splitting-off of Bette Porter from the character list! The discussion took place on the list's talk page here. I have remerged the article into the list.

Thanks again,

Neelix (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! That explains why I missed it. Thanks for following up on that! — GorillaWarfare talk 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amadesa

Please tell me you're done leaving me a message - its making me nuts!Vinithehat (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, haha. The template was being uncooperative. — GorillaWarfare talk 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featherlite Coaches

The user was a sock of ChildofMidnight - see User:Freakshownerd Codf1977 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough. Thank you! — GorillaWarfare talk 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Codf1977 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy request

Hi GorillaWarfare. Could you userfy the following deleted pages for me? (1) Rachel Sussman; (2) Featherlite Coaches. Thank you much! --Bsherr (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has already been done -- I assume you don't need newer versions or anything? — GorillaWarfare talk 20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, just ten minutes before your post here. Nothing further needed. Thanks very much! --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hitchin hoaxes

The Hitchin-related hoax claims by User:Simonwalker69 seem to have led to a rather precipitate response, considering that he has only been an editor for a few days. Is there something going on here that isn't obvious? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, they are anything but precipitate. There were three articles that Simon tagged: Hitchin Signpost Case, West Hitchin, and Royston municipal picnic. They all seemed rather dubious. However, upon looking through them, Hitchin Signpost Case was the only one I felt comfortable deleting per G3, which is reserved for blatant hoaxes. The article regards a mayor exercising his right as a Justice of the Peace in order to indict a signpost for assaulting his wife. No mention of this case could be found online, which is unusual considering that if someone actually prosecuted a signpost, there would be significant coverage. The other two articles definitely seemed like hoax articles, but I didn't want to be too hasty in deleting them. So, I submitted them to AfD. Their discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royston municipal picnic and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Hitchin. They were both closed unanimously for delete, with three votes in each.
The whole thing seems entirely legitimate to me. I don't believe the deletion of the articles was hinging much on Simon, other than the fact that he noticed them. They were each evaluated separately, and action was taken as I (in the case of Hitchin Signpost Case) and the community (in the cases of West Hitchen and Royston municipal picnic) saw fit.
Why do you bring this up? — GorillaWarfare talk 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sometimes look in on Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles, where I quite often find that articles aren't hoaxes but simply obscure or badly referenced (two yesterday for example, Brutus the bear and Hannibal (Mercenary War)). I myself like to add quirky material such as John Glassco#Pornography. So I'm concerned to see this material, which has the appearance at least of being no worse than quirky, deleted on the say-so of a newly arrived editor, and deleted, if I may say so, in undue haste. The two that were sent to AFD were closed early and after three votes each, as you note, one of which said "Delete, unless someone posts proof that thes sources are genuine. Too implausible for me to bother checking myself." That seems to me an unacceptable argument in itself, and doubly unacceptable that the AFD was closed early without giving anyone (such as the original contributors) time to respond.
Please note, I'm not arguing for the toleration of hoax material, nor am I making any claim for or against the validity of the material under discussion. I'm suggesting that an over-hasty approach like this puts good-faith but obscure material at risk. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementary. According to Google Books, the word "Royston" does not appear in Burgo Partridge, A History of Orgies or Wayland Young, Eros Denied or Terry Gould, The Lifestyle. I think this is a much better reason for deletion than the one cited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late reply -- I didn't see that there was continued discussion. If you have an issue with the closure of the AfDs, I'd suggest you go to the closing admin or WP:DRV. However, I believe they were appropriately closed, and it seems that you agree. — GorillaWarfare talk 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been loved by MJ94

Hey there! MJ94 has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, MJ94 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


For everything you've done for me, and for being an amazing friend.

Aw, thank you! — GorillaWarfare talk 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Steelhaven

Can I ask how you arrived at your closing rationale? My reading of the debate was that it was split between delete, merge and redirect; keep was pretty much the only thing ruled out by consensus. Cheers, Reyk YO! 03:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not still no consensus? — GorillaWarfare talk 04:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be "default to keep", no. When the discussion is split between alternatives X, Y and Z I don't think you should simply decide to go with alternative Q if that is unpalatable to everyone involved. I am going to be bold and redirect it, which is how the discussion in my opinion should have been closed. Reyk YO! 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:No consensus. The relevant parts are: Discussion and debate on a proposal may continue on talk pages after a "no consensus" situation, but in the meantime, it is important that affected articles are not subjected to edit-wars despite a lack of policy or guideline direction on an issue., as well as In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it that you don't object to the article being redirected? Good. That spares both of us a tedious DRV. Reyk YO! 04:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll object if it turns into an edit war. I guess duke it out among yourselves on the talk page, but if it gets out of hand, I'll step in again. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Also WP:No consensus is an essay, not policy so nobody should feel bound by it. In my opinion the advice given there regarding no consensus at AfDs is very poor advice- precisely because it seems to allow for ridiculous situations like this where consensus is clearly that an article is unsuitable in its current form but because people can't decide which of three ways to fix it the result is to do nothing. Reyk YO! 04:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it's an essay, but I personally think the view given there is useful. However, if you're looking for policy: Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. (from WP:Deletion policy) and Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned from editing. (from WP:Edit warring). I think those might be enough to back up my point. As for your point that keeping an article is doing nothing, I don't believe that's true. The article can be referenced, for one. And if you think something must be done about it, the talk page is useful for discussing merges/redirects/etc. However, I stand by my earlier point. I will not step in unless problems arise with your decision. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the redirect is being edit-warred over, I'll drop this across to DRV. There are only 2 Keep votes and they're both "It's notable" and should've been ignored anyway. No way can this be default to Keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination)

Looking at your closing of this discussion, I would like to respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision. There seemed to be consensus to delete all of the lists except for the one about parasites. All of the "keep all" !votes were based on WP:ATA and they never revised their reasoning for keeping. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed and changed my decision to delete. If someone wants to make it into a category, I'm more than happy to userfy the page so they can have access to it. — GorillaWarfare talk 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was very surprised to see this closed as a delete! The arguments for deletion don't appear to be very policy-based - the main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not a reason to delete if you read through WP:CLT. What's important is whether a list, category or template is useful to the readers or is redundant to better system of navigation (usefulness is less of an "argument to avoid" in the context of CLT; a system of navigation that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and most of the critical replies addressed to keep !voters don't seem to have understood the application of WP:CLT at all). Arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' are also troubling, since there is no reason that such lists could not be improved by annotation (as several editors made clear). I also felt WP:IINFO was clearly misapplied: by definition, a selective list is not indiscriminate. There are good, perfectly reasonable grounds to delete lists like these (e.g. demonstrating that the attribute that they are being listed by is not a sensible, navigationally useful, or notable one) but the quality of policy/guideline-based argument in this debate was generally poor: there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion (perhaps because there were a bunch of quite different articles in the nomination so individual application was harder to discuss).

In fairness, there were quite a few !votes both ways, and I know I'm seeing it from the perspective of someone who was persuaded towards the keep option (after reading User:DGG's thorough analysis, which the nominator appears to have misunderstood in his reply), so I'm not disputing that it was within your discretion to close it as a delete. For transparency though, I'd really appreciate it if you could write a more thorough rationale for your closing decision, since the AFD was fairly contentious and obviously close to call if you changed your mind! Also, at present, your rationale suggests userfying and recreation as a category, which suggests that WP:CLT concerns led you to your decision. But it would clearly be possible to recreate this lists as annotated lists (not just "wasted opportunity of blue links") which have a very different implication per CLT (they cease to be redundant to categories). Your closure decision should probably make it clear whether there is any prejudice against recreation as referenced annotated lists, rather than just as categories. TheGrappler (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained more thoroughly at the discussion page. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEADLINE I find that since the closure itself was disputed, and the result was disputed and flipped, and in my view ultimately poorly explained, I'm of a mind to revert the closure entirely. --Lexein (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review is that way. You do not have the right/authority to revert an admin close at AFD. Courcelles 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles -- I'm the admin that closed it. He's following this: "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page." — GorillaWarfare talk 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this, but he said he was thinking of reverting your close, something that is patently not allowed. (I closed too many of these as delete to count, before you were given +sysop to express any neutral opinion on the merits). Courcelles 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I misread. I thought you were referring to me when you said I didn't have the right/authority. I see what you mean, yes. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries... but, what are you doing closing AFD's? I thought I was the only one to pass RFA based on anti-vandalism work and then go off and do... well, anything else! ;) Well, that and there's less vandalism work to do over the Summer... AIV is quiet every time I stick my head in these days. Courcelles 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Man, it's looking like I should stick to my anti-vandal work, haha!
Nah. I just think of the last three of us to run as anti-vandal admins, only TideRolls has significantly used the tools in that capacity, instead of finding lots of other little things to stick our noses in. I mean, the term "Arbitration Enforcement" sure as heck never showed up in my RFA, yet, well... sometimes you have to deal with situations as you find them. (I really was just having a laugh. It's good you're off doing other things.) Courcelles 01:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, TideRolls was one of those people who I thought was an administrator long before he actually was... And yeah, I know you were kidding haha. Not having the most luck with deletions recently though. Guess I should get used to it with the no-consensus ones. — GorillaWarfare talk 01:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Meh, I spent June practically living at DRV. It's about as much fun of a week as watching a featured content candidacy, except that you always know dropping everything to spend the evening at the library will help your FAC/FLC! It seems like any time you get a discussion that reasonable admins could have closed different ways, a DRV ensues. Sometimes multiple times. I've got one deletion right now that is at DRV for a third time, which I'm not even bothering to put on my watchlist... what else could I say at this point? I think the way the place operates these days teh only way to avoid DRV is to only close the unanimous AFD's... and well we could write a bot to do that. Courcelles 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY. Per WP:DRV shall this be considered sufficient attempt to discuss, clearing the way to post the request for review? --Lexein (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sounds good to me. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it for WP:DRV here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 31 — GorillaWarfare talk 00:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin'. Dinner engagement delayed me. --Lexein (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! — GorillaWarfare talk 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess things move fast while I'm asleep. :P Axem Titanium (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. If I'm erring, it's on the side of AGF i's-dotted-t's-crossed. In retrospect, I do wish all the nom's had been separate, though. --Lexein (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction, it's appreciated. I didn't mean to nag and I hope I didn't come across as hostile - I was just genuinely surprised at the result and felt that clarification was necessary, particularly because of the way the decision was reversed and the uncertainty about recreation issue. TheGrappler (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! AfD decisions like this (that could go either way, or in a multitude of ways) are never something I mind having reviewed. You didn't come across as hostile to me. In fact, I appreciate you coming at this civilly and calmly. — GorillaWarfare talk 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_2&oldid=1089612634"