User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 19

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Edits on James Mwangi
Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest. Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?

197.237.79.204 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend beginning a discussion at WP:BLPN, where you will get more eyes on this. I don't have a moment to look at this right now and it will be several hours before I do, so I'd recommend asking for advice there. Even when I do get a minute, I am not at all familiar with Kenyan media sources, so I might even bring it to BLPN myself if you haven't by then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lin Wood Page - Deletion of "false"
By "well sourced", are you referring to the 3 articles linked in footnote 6?2600:1702:1700:1700:0:0:0:3B (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, or any of the many sources that have been discussed at enormous length at Talk:2020 United States presidential election (which is where those footnotes came from). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

2020-12 create an account
Hello,

I suggest you to add an hyperlink to Why create an account? in the sentence « Creating an account on Wikipedia is quick, free, and does not require you to provide any personal information » in https://www.mollywhite.net/wikipedia-concern. You don't need to reply to this suggestion. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, good idea. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way only open AFD/XFD/MFD/RFC pages I make are added to my watchlist?
Is there a way only open AFD/XFD/MFD/RFC pages I make are added to my watchlist?4thfile4thrank (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be better to ask questions at WP:HELPDESK or WP:Teahouse. However, the answer is no. Except, a new feature is being trialed and you may or may not see a new button under the edit summary for "Watch this page" when editing. That can be set, for example, to "1 month" to make the page appear on your watchlist for a month only. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The "watch this page" button on the edit form should be there regardless of the status of the timed watchlist functionality–it's been around for a long time. If you use Twinkle to create XfDs (which I highly recommend), there is a setting in Twinkle preferences to automatically watchlist the pages: Twinkle/Preferences. RfCs you will need to manually add to your watchlist, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the subtle humor
I just wanted to commend you on this edit where you changed ID to identification and gave the ironic edit summary of "unnecessary abbr", thereby using an abbreviation of "abbreviation" to explain the removal of another abbreviation. It made me chuckle as I looked through my Watchlist. BirdValiant (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I liked that, too. :-) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mediation Help Request for Mona Eltahawy Page
Can you help mediate a dispute I am having with a user/arbitrator named Roscelese. She isn't responding to requests I am making to talk. I sent out some more request and haven't heard back. However, there hasn't been a ton of time so she still might respond but I had already requested to talk to her about it per Wiki Guidelines and she just reverted my post and made the same statement "living bio bad sources etc etc" or something like that. She doesn't say which source or why and basically changes my even handed post into to a post that is defending the person the article is about because it mischaracterizes the poster to make it say the poster was offensive to "Muslims" as though it is a fact rather than keeping it the way it was - factual/even handed where the poster is going agaisnt actual Jihadists (people with machine guns and explosive suicide vests). I think she may be upset because I misunderstood the criticism and controversy section and wrote a piece on the subject that, while well reasoned, probably was considered my own research under Wikipedia Guidelines. I left that down because I think she was probably correct (even though my own research was a well reasoned analysis of Eltahawy's actions based on sources from her own movements that she was a part of - I do admit it was suggestive of my opinion on Eltahawy which is another reason I left it down- but thought that is what the reader understands when they see 'criticism' in the title). I've asked a pro-Israel user as well if he can help mediate. I'm somewhat reticent to ask you because I'm basically helping her by including you since you do a lot of the manosphere stuff (thank you for your work on that if it is even handed- I haven't looked at all your work but I know those groups are "out there" too - like Mona Eltahawy is). Since the page is on Mona Eltahwy, which is a self described radical Islamic Feminist and the post I made had to do with her arrest over a poster against Radical Jihad (not liberal/radical Islamic feminism - and remmeber, this is Mona Eltahwy's self description), I thought having a pro-Israel mediator and someone involved with more of the feminist arena would be a good mix to have the discussion. Look forward to your response. Thanks

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Roscelese was right to revert your edit, and she provided a clear reason in her edit summary. She is referring to your use of The Blaze, a source which has been determined by the Wikipedia editing community to be "generally unreliable" and not to be used as a source: WP:RSP. You should not continue to try to use it as a reliable source, and you also should stop reverting and start a discussion on what you propose to add at Talk:Mona Eltahawy. Some of your past additions have been extremely lacking in WP:NPOV; all of them have had issues with quality sourcing and have been repeatedly contested. Per WP:BRD, you should get consensus for any proposed change rather than trying to add it directly, repeatedly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree that anything clear was written prior to me contacting you and if something was I didn't see it - please show it so (time stamps would help too). I disagree with the assertion that regurgitating a policy line without more is an explanation. This was the regurgitation: "You may not use unreliable sources or misrepresent sources to cast aspersions on a living person" - that's not really clear without further explanation - doesn't even say what source and how many arbitration cases on sources exist and how much reading and research do I have to do to see what is allowed? New people need to be helped by arbitrators. Not just told NO. And if you are referring to this explanation: "Undid revision 992602231 by GhostsOfGironde (talk) WP:RSP#Blaze Media -- please discuss your proposed additions on the talk page per WP:BRD, as they have been repeatedly contested and have had issues with NPOV, OR, and sourcing" it was not seen by me before contacting you as it was probably being done at the same time. I wasn't being given a real reason. What you stated was definitely more information and the knew one at least gives codes. Also, what is batman? Is that a fly by night thing? That sounds like a veiled internal canvassing attempt if it is "codeword" to others. I have no way of knowing because I am new. Do you know what "batman" means? To signal with a codeword with a new person who wouldn't know would be veiled and disingenuous. I'm trying to assum good faith but she already lied by ommission to me on our initial contact and had a Canvassing attempt (not as a new person, after at least 5 whole years of editing- if she started in 2000, then 10 years...I can't tell)

I really care about making this accurate. It bothers me a lot because it puts a lot of people in danger, including the ones that had to face the mini pogrom in May 2020 in Fairfax, Los Angeles. If speaking out against Jihad is Islamophobia, all those people are going to be in serious physical danger because they will first be in danger and then any attempt to defend themselves will be described as Islamophobia creating more aggression against them. And Wikipedia will have helped create the social atmosphere to make that happen. Thats not good for Wikipedia's future.

I would still like to mediate the content changes she made that don't have to do with "the Blaze". Are you willing to mediate that? She also used the word "WE" when speaking about liking my edits in an initial message on my talk page. She won't speak with me so I thought you might know (she might speak with me now but I kind of want to cool off for a bit with her and will go to the tlak page later), do you know who the "WE" is that she refers to? Is it Wikipedia itself?

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Roscolese had already linked to our reliable sources policy and biographies of living persons policy on your talk page in your conversation on November 29, so I think it's fair of her to expect you to understand what she meant when she referred to unreliable sources and casting aspersions on living people in an edit summary later on. You don't need to read all of the arbitration cases or anything; the policies she linked to you should be sufficient for you to understand what is required.
 * The new summary that you've quoted here ( "Undid revision 992602231 by GhostsOfGironde (talk) WP:RSP#Blaze Media -- please discuss your proposed additions on the talk page per WP:BRD, as they have been repeatedly contested and have had issues with NPOV, OR, and sourcing") was my own, not an edit by Roscolese. I reverted your change after you drew my attention to it here.
 * Her "holy misrepresentation, batman" comment that you are asking about is simply a TV reference; in the Batman series, Robin often says ""Holy ________, Batman!" to comment on something that astonishes him. She was just making a comment about how you were misrepresenting sources, she was not using "codewords" to summon other editors as you are inexplicably accusing. It does not seem like you are trying to assume good faith at all; that is a bizarre accusation in what appears to be an attempt to accuse her of repeating a canvassing incident from a decade ago you've noticed she has disclosed on her talk page.
 * Your comments about your edit being reverted putting people in danger are hyperbolic and unhelpful.
 * If you start a conversation on the article talk page about the changes you're hoping to make, I will weigh in. I'm not sure why meditation would really be needed; if Roscelese wishes to reply she can, otherwise you can reach consensus with other editors to the page.
 * She was using a templated message that many of us use when we wish to quickly convey that there were issues with a user's edit, as we see hundreds of new editors often exhibiting the same issues due to being new to the project. The "we" language you are asking about is a part of the boilerplate template language and is not something Roscelese wrote herself. "We" is intended to refer to the general editing community.
 * I don't think it's fair to say Roscelese is refusing to speak with you. I see she did engage with you a bit on your talk page a week or so ago. She has barely edited since you've left your recent messages for her, so the WP:AGF explanation here is she is busy and has not had a chance to respond. Please remember we are all volunteers with demands on our time outside of Wikipedia editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

She lied by ommission on our initial contact and as I said has been in trouble before. It was stonewalling pretty much. It was a revert war with multiple times and no real explanation but the boilerplates. After a time or two it should be more than that. You can see it if you really analyze the timing of her responses. What I'm saying is likely - especially with her history. What about "batman"? I will go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostsOfGironde (talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll put some proposals on there tomorrow as I need to relook at the sources. I need to cool down but thanks for agreeing to weigh in. I'll ping you when I make the proposals.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You edited your comment as I was replying, so I missed some of your questions. I've updated my comment (timestamped 05:31, 6 December 2020) to fully respond to your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct, we were definitely both editing at the same time. Wish it was live. Anyways, cooled down a little but its really not that hyperbolic if you were there near the area. I can get you the video on the talk page. People's business were ransacked and people were accosted. The police refused to help because they had too much to handle. Synagogues and other community structures were spray painted too with disparaging remarks. It really was a lot like a Russian style pogrom in proto-form. I can explain later. And the canvassing thing - yeah a long time ago - but after so much time she should have known by then how wrong that is. So it is questionable when coupled with the lie by omission and the nature of the edits she removed. But lets stop with that - my opinion is mine - yours is your's and that's fine. I'll see you later on the talk page.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about copyright
I recently created the article for American Airlines Flight 476. However, I just checked Earwig, and I am now greatly concerned if I paraphrased the accident report too closely. Have I infringed on anyone's copyright? Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Earwig's tool is showing me only a 9.1% chance of copyvio, which is pretty low. I might rephrase "a wooded area just short of the runway", but otherwise it looks fine to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Sorry for interrupting you on RFPP. I'm only writing because I saw a long time editor get blocked recently, and I am now patrolling articles for copyright violations. I'll work on rephrasing the article ASAP. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an interruption! Happy editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom
I was very sad to see that you are not running again for ArbCom. I hope you decide to run again after a respite. Any particular reason? If you have answered already, please feel free to point me to your previous statement. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. I love your post from Dr. Strangelove. One of my favorite movies. Kubrick is quite the artist--many top notch films under his belt. Full Metal Jacket was just on TCM --David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm finishing up my sixth year on the Committee and could really use a break. I have returned to active editing this year more than I have in recent years, and am looking forward to devoting all of my wiki-time to editing (and my various admin gnoming tasks I enjoy) for a bit. I won't completely rule out running again in the future, but I've found that I don't have nearly as much energy for arbitration as I did in my first terms, even after a break from the Committee in 2018. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Condolences, you'll be missed. I'm not sure how many steps it took from reading this to the urge to add a picture to Rob Monster, but it was a direct cause. On an even less related note ... is that really his birth name, or just something he chose? Because that was my immediate question. Is there any way to cite that, one way or another, in the article? --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware it's his birth name. I've found most people who go by their birth names usually don't have sourcing to support that it's their birth name, since it's sort of the default... When I was working on his Wikidata item a while back I noticed that there was already an item for "Monster" as a surname, which was an alias for, so I suspect it's an anglicized version of that. Rob Monster is Dutch American. It seems like the Mønster surname might be Danish and not Dutch, but it could well be that he has Danish ancestry. Anyway, thanks for finding and adding the image! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you might return. I was concerned that the Rob Monster issue might have something to do with it.  I hope not.  We have your back.  I have no tolerance for bullies. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, nothing like that. I'll still be around, and being off the Committee might actually mean more time to edit! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually liked the way the ArbCom resolved a recent case request. You know, the one where there was bad chemistry between the parties, problems flared up periodically, but the solution was to suspend the matter and table the case? (I was so tempted to write that in the case request, but finally decided the risk of being justifiably indefinitely blocked was too high...) --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo the comments by David Tornheim. Thanks for your service. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about Hexachloroethane edit
Hi, an IP editor re-added information (diff ) about the DHS's use of this chemical against protestors in July, which had previously been reverted by another IP editor without explanation (diff ). This was then reverted by User:Graywalls claiming WP:DUE (diff ). I restored the sentence (after copyediting and adding another source) (diff ) but was reverted by Graywalls and then again by JimRenge, claiming WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. There is a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Hexachloroethane) started by the IP and continued between myself and Graywalls. My position is that they cannot simply claim there is no consensus for inclusion and insist on removing when two other editors disagree, and the sources are reliable and the news is notable. JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion. Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles. Am I mistaken that they are misinterpreting policy/guidelines and that this is not how consensus is achieved, or are they correct and the sentence should be removed until they feel consensus has been reached? Thanks, Laval (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are correct that per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, you should be achieving consensus on the talk page. Two editors introducing the information (and being challenged on it) is not sufficient to say there is consensus for the edit; consensus should be established on the talk page like they have said. They are also correct that something being verifiable does not necessarily mean it needs to be mentioned in an article, and they seem to disagree with your statement that the usage is notable. I have no opinion on the notability (or lack thereof)—I haven't looked at the sources to draw any conclusions of my own.
 * JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion. It looks like JimRenge has just joined the discussion. I would recommend pinging an editor on a talk page before determining that they have "not bothered" to join a discussion; they may not have the page on their watchlist or otherwise may not have realized there was a discussion happening where their input was desired.
 * Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles. I can't really speak to this, as I don't edit chemistry articles much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider it coat racking. A notable recent bank robbery that involved the use of a Ford E-350 by robbers and news coverage shows reliable proof that said vehicle was used, but putting that into Ford Econoline article is undue without significant coverage about the use of that model in bank robbery in context of the vehicle model. Agent Orange is primarily known for its usage in the Vietnam War, so discussing that in that article is appropriate. The Portland protest is closer to the first example than the latter. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Visual Editor
Regarding this oddity, that happened to me yesterday. Weird stuff! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Cats came up on the Wikimedia discord, and I thought of you. Have a kitty.

I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC) 
 * Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Q clearance
Hello, I'd like your advice on a wording issue on the article Q clearance, if you have time to provide it. The very bottom § See also says:

"* QAnon, a conspiracy theory surrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have Q clearance"

My problem with this is that it makes it seem like the Q clearance that the anonymous poster claims to have actually exists.

To be clear, it does not. A “Q” clearance at the Department of Energy wouldn't grant QAnon the level of access its believers believe QAnon has. I can't think of a good rewording. [S]urrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have an imaginary form of Q clearance? [C]laiming to have a non-existent form of Q clearance granting higher access than Q clearance would? So wordy!

Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a very valid concern. My thought would be to remove QAnon from the see also section entirely, and instead add a paragraph to the "In popular culture" section that can go into more detail. I'll take a stab at it today. Have you got a source handy for the point about Q clearance not granting the kind of access that Q claims to have? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realized I edited my reply to add the question after pinging, so you may have missed the question. Repinging. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would this suffice? Merry Christmas, by the way
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-security-clearances/2018/07/27/46f065a6-90e7-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html
 * Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically looking for a source that supports that Q claims to have access to information beyond what Q clearance would authorize, which that WaPo source doesn't appear to verify. Merry Christmas as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically looking for a source that supports that Q claims to have access to information beyond what Q clearance would authorize, which that WaPo source doesn't appear to verify. Merry Christmas as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * My favorite! Thank you GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice Media reliability
So looking at the past listing for Vice Media on WP:RSP it makes no sense. One discussion is literally just a single-response about Refinery29, the next is some off-topic stuff about Vice from the deprecation RFC for the Daily Caller, then another noncommital single-response about Motherboard, then same for "Vice magazine usable?", then a discussion where someone was accusing Vice of being "Original Research", then a discussion of whether a film review was a review or an ad. Perhaps it's time for a firmer discussion on WP:RSN about Vice? It only seems to be "Yellow" because no clear discussion has been had. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I am thinking such a discussion should propose separating Vice News, specifically, from the other parts of Vice Media. I'd like your opinion before I proceed, if that's ok? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Our articles Vice News and Vice Media are reasonably long, and don't include any "lack of reliability" type criticism. I've used Vice sources for important parts of articles about some reasonably controversial living people: Honey badger (men's rights) and Fredrick Brennan. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A new/more formal discussion seems like a great idea. I'm not super clear on the distinction between Vice News and other Vice Media properties, but surely that could be discussed as well. Mentally I categorize Vice alongside publications like The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, Slate, and Vox, which are all green but sometimes partisan (they're all fairly lefty). I think that's why I was surprised it was yellow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice! I've been advised that I shouldn't start another RFC-type discussion while I already have one running at WP:RSN (especially given that I was personally attacked for placing that one) so I'll either wait a couple weeks to propose this, or someone else can if they feel like it. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize you already had one open. That makes sense, there's no rush really. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to make a non-COI edit?
Executive summary: Could you remove the BLP sources template from Julie Brill?

Details: The article Julie Brill has apparently had a "citations needed" template at the top since April 2010. Over the past year, the sentences have been painstakingly cited, through multiple correct uses of the COI edit request process on Talk:Julie Brill: every sentence now bears at least one, and many several, citations or references. Yet on the last COI edit request implementation, the implementing non-COI editor, Donna, User:DonSpencer1, wrote: "more are indeed needed to properly source the article". I asked Donna on her talk page what citations are still needed, but it has been five days, and since Donna has, from notices on her user and talk pages, gone "semi-retired", and hasn't edited for a month, I don't think she will answer any time soon. So I'm asking you, as someone with a lot of experience, a spotless reputation, and a certain interest in the subject of women in tech companies, to glance over the article Julie Brill, and if you agree with me that citations are no longer blatantly needed, to be so good as to delete that template. Or if not, to say what text needs citation to remove the template, because I honestly can't see it. In case you've forgotten, here's my own COI statement. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seems reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that parts of the article have been written by Microsoft via edit requests. Some of the sources are poor or not cited properly, which is why the tag was left up. Now the tag has been removed at the request of someone from Microsoft. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed some of the sources appear to be questionably independent, but the issue that the BLP sources tag is raising appears to have been addressed—there are sufficient sources to verify the information. If you think it needs at Third-party tag I won't object, but I don't think BLP sources adequately conveys any current issue. I'm not seeing a conversation on the article talk page about this, though, have you raised your concerns with the sources there? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm commenting only on the tag being removed at the request of someone from Microsoft. I think that's not a good idea, especially given how much of the article the company has written. The last editor to respond to the company's requests wrote, in May this year: "I have, however, left the citations needed tag on the article as more are indeed needed to properly source the article." For example, look at the reception section. Some of it seems to be based on personal websites and similar. SarahSV (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An editor with a COI has largely written the article, yes, but they have followed instructions around COI editing very carefully and all of their edits appear to have been implemented by uninvolved editors (except for one, self-reverted edit that was turned into a requested edit). If you want to re-add the tag, I'm not going to war you on it, but I'd hope you'd at least be clear on the talk page about what is not verifiable at the moment. The editor who left that comment was not, and there are no inline tags pointing to where they have remaining concerns, or what they meant by "properly source". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarah! Good to hear from you. If I couldn't get GW, I would probably have asked you to look at it. If you state your specific concerns somewhere - article talk page? - I will absolutely do my best to have them resolved, whether that's by finding more independent sources or removing info without better sources. Yes, by asking Microsoft people to make edit requests: there really isn't another way, is there? --GRuban (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Opened section on article talk page. Welcoming any interested GorillaWarfare talk page watchers there! --GRuban (talk)

Merry Christmas

 * Thank you! Very happy holidays to you and yours as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello GorillaWarfare: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, confermusearename (talk, contribs) Have a nice day! 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thank you! Happy holidays! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Trustee
With all the free time you're going to have now that you won't be an arb, I think you should consider running for one of the community WMF trustee seats in the next election. There are probably fewer than 25 people in the world who have as much or more experience as you do when it comes to Wikimedia community governance issues, editing, and WMF/community relations. Plus, you have experience leading software engineering teams, plus you're young and will understand/connect with the under-40 demographic of editors and potential editors. The whole project would benefit from having you representing the community on the board. I hope you run. Levivich harass/hound 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought, though I'm planning to put that free time towards editing for now. I could use a break from arbitration, and I don't think joining the board would exactly be restorative in the way I'm hoping my next year or so of wiki-involvement will be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your reasoning for declining now. I do hope that you will consider running for a trustee seat in the future. Things can change and you are qualified. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

They're talkin' about you
The hacks at Breitbart, are talking about us in an article titled "Lauren Southern Sends Defamation Complaint to Wikipedia over Long-Running Smear Campaign". Give it a read if you can be bothered with it, it's good for a laugh. Bacondrum (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. TDA can't seem to help himself mentioning me in a story, even when I'm barely involved. Bizarre. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that article constitute legal threats that result in her being blocked? IHateAccounts (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that Gorilla is right on the substance, there is no way Southern would go through with a lawsuit. Any conversations she may have had with neo-Nazis or alt-righters would be publicly revealed in discovery, as they would be material to the truth of the "defamatory" statements Wikipedia made about her. CozyandDozy (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Southern hasn't made any legal threats on-wiki, and hasn't edited in a month. Unless she returns and begins threatening legal action, I don't think there's any value to blocking the account. It would most likely only escalate tensions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Thank you! Happy holidays to you too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's time to close the Powell RfC
30 days have elapsed. The majority of the votes, and the stronger argument, are clearly on my side. Powell should be described as a conspiracy theorist because that's a huge part of what she is known for in RS. Contrary to your argument, our opinion about what matters in her life is irrelevant. Judged by mention in RS, the 1.5 months of election conspiracy theories (and representation of Trump) is at least as important as her other work as a lawyer and federal prosecutor, and almost certainly more so.

You're smart (much smarter, and for that matter less petty, than most of the Admins), and I think you'll realize that my argument is the stronger one if you re-read it. Regardless the community has spoken and it's time to move on. CozyandDozy (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking me to formally close the RfC? I'm not going to close an RfC I've !voted in. I think a request at WP:AN/RFC would be best, because I'm not sure I agree the consensus is as clear as you are reading it to be, and someone could easily argue that without a formal close by an uninvolved editor, your readdition of the descriptor was improper. I'm not going to revert you, but I do think it will save some headaches with this article down the line if there is a proper close. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thank you, happy holidays! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, GW!!


The SandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Merry Christmas! I hope you have a lovely holiday. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Violating Three-revert rule / Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 09gregco (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats a bit much, I mean you reverted almost as much as he did, and he is the more experienced editor as you have had this account less than a day, its a bit odd to report him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithin (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Where is this discussion? I'm not seeing anything at WP:AN/EW, nor does it look like you've ever posted at a dispute resolution noticeboard. I will also note that I did not violate 3RR, as your section heading implies. I'm surprised you even know about 3RR, given you apparently started editing today and have fewer than ten edits under your belt—or have you edited before under a different name? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sidney Powell
Hi GorillaWarfare, I have objected to the closure both in rationale (rejecting out-of-hand the weight of Support !votes by claiming they did not provide enough sources, especially after both NonReproBlue and Neutrality provided multiple WP:RS supporting the wording) and failing to account for the change in coverage during the time the discussion ran.

I'm also a little disappointed that you didn't re-check your own work on the subject. The New York Times is even now explicitly using the wording "conspiracy theorist" to describe Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen your message on ProcrastinatingReader's talk page. Have you seen my comment at the article talk page? It's improper to unilaterally overrule closes one disagrees with (especially in RfCs where one has voted, or in Cozy's case, started). As I've said in that comment, if the sources have indeed shifted so significantly, there can be another discussion.
 * It's not the job of closers of RfCs to review all available sourcing themselves–that would effectively be a supervote. Closers simply evaluate the opinions expressed at the RfC and articulate the overall consensus. If sources shift during the RfC and that needs to be taken into account, that should be brought to the attention of those who have participated in the discussion so they can re-review their !vote. From what I can see, these new sources were not mentioned at all during the RfC, but now the closer is getting flak for somehow not considering them, which is unfair to them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Juan Branco
Hi there! You protected Juan Branco last month pursuant to an RFPP request. There are some serious ongoing issues with the subject of the article making edits to the page and complaining on Twitter about potentially libelous/defamatory material, blanking, etc. A recent BLP noticeboard thread was closed after the editor claiming to be the subject appeared to make legal threats. I have fully protected the page again, but was hoping you might be able to weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Adding to this: The account User:Brancojuan was banned for legal threats under an IP here. There are newspaper articles about him not only embellishing his own article over the years but also about him pretending to be a "Wikipedia admin" and threatening another editor through their employer. The article was deleted once in 2016 and nominated for deletion again in February 2020 - I offered to revise it to remove the NPOV and non encyclopedic elements. Insults and threats from various SPAs, sockpuppets and accounts claiming to be the subject followed ever since. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Indefinite full protection seems quite extreme given most (all?) recent disruption has come from IP editors. Why wasn't semi-protection sufficient, or even ECP? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with GW here. Indef full protection is overboard in this situation, -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given—from what I could tell by the talk page—the nature and years-long duration of the dispute, the fairly recent involvement of two autoconfirmed users, and the history of sockpuppetry by the subject, I thought full protection would be most appropriate, and made it indefinite simply so that disruption would not resume immediately after it lapsed. If I went overboard, please feel free to reduce it to a more adequate level/duration! I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Full protection should be used extremely rarely, and usually only for short durations–for example if there is a major editing dispute and autoconfirmed editors are edit warring without discussing changes. It completely locks down editing on a page, and even administrators are expected not to edit through full-protection without explicit consensus. From the disruption you're describing, I think it would be more appropriate to use indefinite semi-protection on the article, and address issues with autoconfirmed editors/sockpuppets on a per-editor basis. If you think semiprotection will be insufficient, then I would apply a longish-term (1 year?) ECP under BLP discretionary sanctions authorized via the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case, and then revisit in a year whether extension of ECP or stepping down to semiprotection (or no protection) is reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. ECP outside of ArbCom enforcement and the BLP case are both new to me after many years of inactivity from admin duties—I will re-familiarize myself with the relevant policies. And happy new year! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'd be more comfortable I could be the one to apply the ECP under BLP DS. Happy New Year to you as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all—happy to do so. (Should have downgraded before going offline, actually.) And thanks again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good :) Don't forget to drop a line in WP:DSLOG to note it. I know I forget sometimes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GorillaWarfare!


Happy New Year! GorillaWarfare, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 01:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Happy New Year! Thanks for all your awesome work this year. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Despite our having some recent differences on the Sidney Powell RFC, I still highly respect your analysis and am thankful for your taking all the time you have with me. Hope you're bundled up safe for this new year with all the COVID insanity going on. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! All editors disagree sometimes, I think, and it's the mark of a good editor when one can continue to respect and get along with those with whom they disagree. Thanks for all your hard work on the project recently; I know you haven't had the easiest go of it. I am doing my best to stay safe and healthy, and I hope you're able to do the same! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I would be a liar to suggest, and you a fool to believe, that there is no agenda in this post. But beyond that agenda, I find myself respecting you as an editor and intellect, so I am pleased to wish you a happy new year. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Cozy. I apologize for the timing of the AE request, it would've been kinder for me not to address this issue on a holiday. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're apologizing too much! You have a policy basis for your complaint, which I accept. I do not accept that any of these incidents (which involved edit warring the addition of true material, cited not in the lede but elsewhere in the article) are particularly serious violations (with the exception of the Peinovich thing, which upon reflection was serious misconduct on my part).
 * But this is a value judgment about which friends can disagree. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help at Cyndi Lauper
Hi GW, I've tried three noticeboards this evening. Any help will be great. Happy New Year! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like Diannaa just protected the article. I reverted a lingering piece of vandalism, but hopefully that'll take care of it. Thanks for letting me know, and feel free to give a shout if it continues (though I may not be online much longer this evening). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you both. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Working Woman's Barnstar

 * Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * SecondedTuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Any word?
Hi, GW - still no word from Berean Hunter?  Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None that I've heard. I asked around in mid-November and someone who knows them was going to reach out, but they haven't heard back either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't seen, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Definitely worrying, I hope he's alright. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hammersoft
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news
 * Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news
 * You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration
 * By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
 * Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Elijah12354
Hello i have a question about the 2020-21 NFL playoffs --Elijah12354 (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

When do u mean by auto confirmed or confirmed access --Elijah12354 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick thank you
I personally avoid current event articles on Wikipedia at almost all costs. Seeing you already editing in full-force January 2021 United States Capitol protests is seriously impressive. Thank you :). Perryprog (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I used to avoid them too, they can be messy. Thanks for the note! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wanted to say this too. Thanks for your (and everyone else's) general excellence there; I'm averse to breaking news coverage and the article was really helpful understanding what happened. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad it's been helpful! Honestly I find working on breaking news articles helps me process what's happening—it's generally better for me than just doomscrolling :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well shit, that word describes me all too well.... Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you...
Could you take a glance at ? Seems to be an underage editor on wikipedia who's gone down an excessively toxic rabbit hole. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're wrong. ;) (See this, for instance.) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going by where the editor mentions "when I sent a request to my dad for more time on bitchute" that made me think they are underage. But... yikes. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand that part, but I think this person dug that hole themselves, rather than falling into it. Thanks for noting it. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into it! I think this[] might be another one based on this edit IHateAccounts (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thank you. GW, did you see our president's most recent video? Very exciting that he's back on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I hadn't... that didn't last long. Thanks for dealing with the sock, Drmies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't look now but... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol
My section got erased unless it was no longer needed. Cwater1 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was archived: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1. Because the talk page is so active, things get archived quite quickly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack
I have not personally attacked anyone. Not even remotely. I am aware of the tactics to silence any opposing views. This is two to silencing me; claiming I'm violating terms, claiming I'm using talk as a forum. Claiming I'm personally attacking. If I personally attacked anyone, anyone could cite a specific line. All I did was defend. Somehow this too will be construed as some kind of personal attack even though nobody is mentioned and I'm following a protocol others are using. J1DW (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not contributors. Feel free to suggest any specific changes you think ought to be made, backed with reliable sources. Quit with the "I'm being silenced by Wikipedians with leftist agendas". It's not "silencing" you to object to your suggestions that we should be making changes that contradict Wikipedia policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Another barnstar

 * Thank you! And thank you for your work there as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. It's in my backyard - I rehearse up there on Tuesday nights, for God's sakes. I guess I'm taking it more personally than I otherwise might. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, I didn't know that. Stay safe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, physically, I'm fine - choir rehearsals are on pause due to the pandemic, and I live in the suburbs. But even so, it's a neighborhood I know and love well. Fortunately the insanity seems to have been confined mostly to Capitol grounds and not the surrounding residential/commercial areas. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that. It's jarring when things like this happen in one's backyard; there was some conflict with police, property damage, and various other unrest in Boston this summer, but nothing like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To a point, living in this area one is used to it - the church where we rehearse is near the Supreme Court, so we occasionally see evening protests in the area. And my office has been protested before, given that I've worked for one or two unpopular agencies in my day. But those are, for the most part, non-violent.
 * Boston, now...they do have a history of agitation, don't day? There was an incident a while ago...something about a harbor? And taxes? It's been a while, though, so maybe I have the details wrong. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * *sips tea* GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Although as a Southerner, I feel compelled to note that we had a Tea Party first. (Actually a really interesting little story, which I didn't know until visiting Edenton a few years ago.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I learned something new today! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about Vladimir Zelenko
Hello! I recently came across the article about Vladimir Zelenko, which is extremely one-sided in its current form. Could I get your quick opinion on whether the subject is notable enough to try salvaging the article? If so, I'm happy to try to do so; I just would rather not go through it all if it should be deleted in the end anyway. The relevant sources seem to be this NYT article and similar ones that basically amount to "this is a guy who made a questionable medical claim back in March that medical experts warned about, and whose claims were then promoted right-wing media". —DanCherek (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a bit of a mess. Someone might be able to make a WP:BLP1E argument for deletion, but there are some pretty solid sources (including that NYT article). If you want to be extra sure you could bring it to AfD first, but I'd say it's worth salvaging. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Authoritarian behavior
Hi. I couldn't stop to notice that you are impeding other contributors to edit some articles in Wikipedia. By that I mean you won't let any other contributors modify them in any sensible way. The articles I'm referring are supposed to be about tech platforms, but a high load of political bias were drawn upon them in your edits (ex: Gab, Parler). I also couldn't help to notice by your profile page that you lean left politically. Please, consider being less authoritarian and letting other people contribute sensibly to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * People can and do contribute sensibly to those articles. It is those who wish to modify them in ways that are not sensible who I take issue with. There is no singular decision-maker on what can and can't go in an article—as with anything on Wikipedia, we decide based on consensus. If I have objected to a change on one of those articles and you think I am wrong, you (or anyone) are more than welcome to begin a discussion to achieve consensus one way or the other, and if consensus goes against me (which it certainly has in the past), I accept that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Molly. You don't know me, so let me introduce myself. My name is David Bryant. I'm almost 70 years old. I'm retired. Once upon a time I was a hippy. Peace and love are groovy. 😇
 * I now live in Texas. And I have an excellent education. I graduated from Caltech in 1973. My primary specialty is mathematics, but I have also read a tremendous amount of literature from various eras and cultures, ranging from the Hindu Vedas and the Tibetan Book of the Dead to Roger Zelazny (sci-fi) and Philip Roth. Oh, yeah. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2007, just like you. I worked on the math articles quite a lot ten or more years ago. Things eventually got a little hot and heavy when I ventured into some controversial topics, such as Church of Scientology. If you wish to see some of the arguments in which I was inolved, feel free to browse through the archives of my talk page.
 * I'm sorry to have to point this out, but 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 is absolutely right. I have reviewed several of your edits from the past week or so, and you are clearly a crusader on a mission: to prevent people who disagree with you from editing your pet articles. That's not NPV. That's subverting Wikipedia into a left-wing propaganda tool. Please stop. Even "right-wing extremists" have a right to be heard. Instead of hating them,and shouting them down, you really ought to open your heart and mind a little bit. Love your neighbors. C ya. DavidCBryant 11:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you disagree with reliable sources and reality. But this should be a wake-up call to a lot of people - they spent years believing every word that came out of the mouth of a notorious liar. Wikipedia provides facts, such as the fact that there was no significant electoral fraud and that Trump lost a free and fair election by millions of votes, and that content moderation of a privately-owned and operated service is not government censorship but rather a capitalist decision that hosting false speech which incites seditious violence is neither good for the country nor for business. Those facts do not care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * making ridiculous attacks like "That's subverting Wikipedia into a left-wing propaganda tool. Please stop" doesn't make anyone want to trust that you're here for any other reason than WP:POVPUSHing behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've been editing Wikipedia for so long, I assume you know that editors should not accuse other editors of misbehavior without evidence. Can you please specify where I have demonstrated "hatred" for anyone or "shouted someone down"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can confirm she shouted me down on the gab talk page :D lol not that big of a deal. life goes on, wikipedia will go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:50A0:E5E2:4B47:875F (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid if you feel that an editor politely asking you to provide reliable sources when you suggest changes to be "shouting you down", you may not enjoy editing Wikipedia very much. That is a core requirement of the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we look at the definition of "shout down" it reads "to shout so that (someone who is speaking) cannot be heard. The crowd shouted him down when he tried to give his speech." Webster's. Please see that I was only suggesting that a change needed to be made, not that a certain change was necessary. You quickly changed the subject to my lack of sources and hit me over the head with that fact. I personally dont care either way, but i would like to confirm David's assertion that you have attacked me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:50a0:e5e2:4b47:875f (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of angry words for someone who claims to not care either way. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont know about "angry", mostly trying to help her improve in her moderation. I was a bit stunned by the discourse in the Talk thread I created. I naturally was curious about the source of this, and wound up here. Everyone can look inside themselves and make improvements, and I appreciate David taking the time to thoughtfully reach out to the younger generation. We'll soon forget about this and be on our merry way, so I just hope we can all meet each other with love and friendship. I understand Gorilla's feelings completely, selecting the biggest battlegrounds on wikipedia must be tiring and pushes someone to be quick to be on the offensive. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, the level of condescension you're bringing to the talk page of one of this project's most respected editors is truly remarkable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the applicable verb for it is sealioning, especially often done towards women, and a bit obvious when added to edit summaries like this :( IHateAccounts (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That link is to an edit by David, not me, and obviously he is upset with the moderation on this website, and it is not being addressed. While that happens, you two begin to attack me (not David) for trying to help make Gorilla aware of how she's impacting other users. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His disruptions definitely were addressed, and he doesn't like it. I don't see where his being upset about not being able to make disruptive and false edits to pages enters into it, and nobody has "attacked" you here. Correctly noting the tactics you used isn't itself an attack, especially after you started by attacking GW, falsely accusing her of "authoritarian behavior". IHateAccounts (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "nobody has 'attacked' you here". I just got accused of sealioning, being a misogynist and taking part in condescension. I never used the word "authoritarian". I'm just trying to provide critical feedback and if you think i'm not being sincere im sorry. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is quite obvious you are the same person who made the first edit with the section header "authoritarian behavior". IHateAccounts (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please cite your source (har har). I'm sorry you think that but it's not true, I can see how you could quickly draw a connection there. Peace be with you. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Authoritarian barnstar

 * +1. Your efforts to suppress the true voice of the People have not gone unnoticed :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Impartiality policy
Please keep in mind that your individual political orientation does not mean that you are privileged to ignore Wikipedia’s impartiality policy. I noticed you are reverting my resorption of a more impartial account of Parler. Please do not assume me to be politically divergent form you, because I am not, however I adhere to the impartiality policies of Wikipedia as I believe they benefit everyone.

Thank you and apologies for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMWikiSoldier (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with our policies. Your opinion on the article does not mean you can revert it against past consensus, edit war, and refuse to discuss your actions. I would recommend stopping, as you will almost certainly be blocked if you continue (per WP:3RR). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler
Just a heads up it looks like you are at 7RR. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Six, I believe, but yes. I realized just after my last revert that I'd gone over when you count yesterday's work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the same piece of content reverted more than once in those diffs -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Guerillero, that does not matter for 3RR. Anyhow just making sure you saw. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3RR applies regardless of whether it's the same content. That said, I do think my reversions of the content blanking fall under the "obvious vandalism" exception. Either way, I will be more careful with my counting across days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hhajha
Nothing will happen even after article is move protected, after 17 January 2021. Jashlore (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Powell
I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My email address is on my userpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Britishfinance (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Man, I got stiffed! Where's my $250 offer? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

John Weaver (political consultant)
Hi GW, another editor has re-added the same content that you revdel'd. I don't know at what point more protections become justified, but the original AmCon article is still being shared enough on Twitter that it's likely to be added again in the short term. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've upped the page protection to put an end to the edit warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Help and question with a copyvio
Hi GorillaWarefare, since I just saw you pop up on my watchlist - and I didn't get an answer with another admin I asked about this (and because I thought copyvios are urgent business): I just undid a copyvio (from a book) at Nineteen_Eighty-Four, but after reading up on WP:COPYVIO I noticed that the content should probably be revdelled, is that correct? I have never had a copyvio come up so please excuse my inexperience. For the future, how are these cases best handled? The WP:COPYVIO isn't as explicit as I wished, can I place a copyvio-revdel template on the talk page, the article page? Do I undo or wait? Thank you --Mvbaron (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct that the revision should be deleted. I've gone ahead and done so for this particular issue. In the future you can use copyvio-revdel, which goes on the article itself, or if you're not sure if there's a copyright problem you can post at WT:CP. Thanks for keeping an eye out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Ah, WP:CP was exactly what I was looking for, but couldn’t find. Thanks! Mvbaron (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice article, second attempt, I've forgotten how to edit
Nice article in Washington Post. Hope you are well. (I think your web page is out of date -- you're no longer in Ninth Circle of Hell (Arbcomm), right?) NE Ent 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for letting me know! I shall update it :) And thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Unintended action. My apologies
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parler&type=revision&diff=1000653155&oldid=1000652462 Unintended action. My apologies] --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 02:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Jon Ossoff/Raphael Warnock/seniority
Since the most recent protection on Jon Ossoff expired, there has been a slow motion edit war on the page regarding the reason for his being senior to Raphael Warnock with the person stating that the reason is full term/unexpired term and citing a United States House of Representatives website as the source declaring that they are right and the other editor involved is wrong. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you've started a discussion on the talk page, which is what I would have suggested had you not. I've added the page to my watchlist and will intervene if the warring continues without discussion. Note there also appears to be a discussion just above yours from one of the editors involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The declaration that "I am right and you are wrong" is actually in the "discussion" above mine. Also, based on my understanding of American politics, I believe that it is actually the editor who declared "I am right and you are wrong" who is wrong. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Has the issue been continuing? I've added the page to my watchlist and I haven't seen any changes to portions of the article that mention seniority. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the edits in question were made Friday night between about 8 PM and 1-2 AM. There have been other edits since then, but those were the edits that dealt with the issue of how seniority is determined. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Change in Khaleej Times Page
Fazilkhaderkt (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Dear Support, I had made the changes in the Khaleej Times as our Editorial Team suggested that lots of information was outdated and they gave me the content to update it. So nothing much was changes for few paragraph update and grammatical correction. Appreciate your understanding and support. Thank you!
 * I am not support, I am a volunteer Wikipedia editor. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, or are doing so as a part of your duties of employment, please note that you must disclose this information on your userpage following the instructions at WP:PAID. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Former president
You seem to be randomly adding former to president Trump. If he was president at the time, this seems inappropriate and confusing. Any actions after today would be by a former president. Fettlemap (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not random at all. When referring to Trump outside of the context of a specific event during which he was president, it's proper to refer to him as a former president. When referring to Trump in the context of a specific event, president or then-President is proper. If I've made an error somewhere, please be specific. I believe I made a mistake at Baked Alaska (activist) which has since been fixed, but I'm not "randomly" doing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I happened to see your tweet about these edits. For the past couple of years, I've been keeping an eye out for potentially unnecessary "then-"s (example). My general theory is that the passage of time is assumed and implicit to the reader. For a case such as Andrew McCabe, similar to Fettlemap I'm a bit puzzled by edits such as this. That sentence seems very explicit regarding the dates of the event, so I'm not sure why we'd need the clarification. That is, if McCabe was dismissed in 2017 by the president, wouldn't the reader presume that was the current president at the time unless otherwise specified? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think it is much clearer, and prefer to be explicit where possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw this
User_talk:217.6.21.170, just thought I would let you know. Can you ban users for stuff like that? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally sure about the rules. Sorry you have to deal with stuff like that. ChipotleHater (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the heads up! ST47ProxyBot already got it, though I yanked talk page access. Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry that's what you're having to see so soon into your time here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are times when I am glad I am not female. I admire your resilience, transparency, and thick skin. With your heavy involvement in contentious articles, I imagine you get this sort of crap from angry idiots on a constant basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gab stuff
I looked at the latest Gab twitter-brigading call and their rabid followers seem to have decided you are a target, they are pasting various screenshots of information from your user page. Just thought you should be aware. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. They do that once in a while, I'm afraid–I wish there was a better way to warn the folks who edit the page that they might be subjected to it, but it's a bit of a tough line to draw because I think it encourages them. Sometimes the Torba does it himself (via the Gab Twitter account, or his personal account on Gab). You've probably seen him use that account to paint a target on journalists or those who dare tweet something critical of Gab; he's not above doing it to Wikipedians, too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well that was... odd... IHateAccounts (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Did I do better this time?
Sorry didn't know how to add a source without the visual editing interface. Thought I could add one after. NYCyo (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you start a new article for James Lawler? thnx

 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-cdc-response-speci/special-report-how-u-s-cdc-missed-chances-to-spot-covids-silent-spread-idUSKBN29R1E7


 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-dr-james-lawler-warning-us-hospitals-infection-a9385031.html


 * https://www.unmc.edu/intmed/divisions/id/faculty/lawler.html


 * https://omaha.com/livewellnebraska/health/cdc-really-missing-the-mark-emails-show-unmc-doc-concerned-by-federal-virus-response/article_4bbb2326-4467-5bca-9b60-9901e08106cc.html

2600:8804:6600:592:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really write articles on request, and I doubt you'll have much luck asking one-off editors to write this for you. I would suggest drafting the article yourself if you thinking there's sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability: see WP:AfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you forward it on to someone that has the time? i'd rather not put in the work and have it deleted lol 2600:8804:6600:592:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think most people don't create articles on request. WP:Requested articles is the place to go if you don't want to write it yourself, but it is enormously backlogged given there are many, many people who wish to have articles written and don't want to do it themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll just end my effort here lol. this website is too hard to contribute too! best of luck 2600:8804:6600:592:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey GorillaWarfare! I just had a quick question about where to start a conversation to gain a general consensus on something? Right now there's a pretty heated discussion going on on Donald Trump's talk page about how we should refer to him in the first sentence (i.e. saying "was the 45th president" or "served as the 45th president").

While this discussion is happening, I did some further research into other countries to see how they referenced past prime ministers and presidents, and it's pretty all over the place (some using "was", some using "served as", and some using "has been"). So my two questions: Is it worth it to post something with this question, and if so, where would I post it? I'm assuming it would be on either Village_pump_(policy) or Village_pump_(proposals), but I'm just not sure. Thanks! ChipotleHater (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question. If you are simply trying to come to a conclusion about how to describe Trump, a local RfC at the article talk page makes sense. But that doesn't work if you're trying to standardize how we refer to past leaders across the project. If that's what you're hoping to do, I doubt it would be a discussion for VPP since it's not really a policy issue. My first thought would be perhaps to start an RfC at the talk page of MOS:BIO, which has a section on job titles (and actually happens to use "Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." in one of its examples, though to illustrate a different thing). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

More Gab stuff
I can't believe that Torba is still continuing to try to brigade the Gab article and attacking you in particular, which shows just how sexist he is. I just hope you're doing okay. Also, has he attacked any other users as well? X-Editor (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's targeted a few others who have worked on that article in the past. I'm fine, thanks for asking :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure if it's the Gab brigade or someone else, but someone's sockpuppets/meatpuppets have repeatedly tripped edit filters or tried to vandalize my talk page. There are at least 2 other suspects I have on wikipedia regarding that, sadly. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible LTA
There may be an LTA vandalizing the article for Sam Walton. He has also triggered several LTA filters. I tried to talk to Drmies but he logged out before he could see my message. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. He just got blocked. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was quick :) Glad it's handled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strangely, it was a person you recently warned for attacking vandals. It was also a person I recently invited to use RedWarn. That's enough RCP for me tonight. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is. I didn't recognize the name until you pointed it out. That's a shame. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Biasedness and defamatory in the lead of the right-wing related articles
Greetings and thank you very much for your contributions in Wikipedia. I reviewed some of your edits on right-wing-related articles. I think some probably do not meet policies like WP:Biased, WP:Lead, Neutral point of view. Specifically, your edits on the upper lead of the articles like Gab and Parler, which are similar in terms of defamatory context. This is exactly what I said in Talk:Gab (social network) : "What that is described in the lead of this article does not meet WP:Biased & WP:Lead & WP:Neutral and should be removed from the lead and put in a section specified for criticism. As criticism applies almost to any social media, a social media is a tool and that's self-evident that it can be used by criminals. And every social media is used by criminals. It's like saying knives are famous by being used by criminals and mass murderers Using those kind of criticizing information is irrelevant in the upper lead. Also social media articles should not be treated with double standard in this encyclopedia. For example Tor (anonymity network) is criticized and famous for being used by criminals and so on, but we don't put criticism or defamatory opinions in the upper lead, it's against our policies. Consequently I will transfer the information to another section specified for criticism with regard to that rationale. Thanks"

- The Stray Dog Talk Page   00:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Defamation is is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. Which of my additions to the article are false? You have not provided any diffs to support any of these accusations of bias or defamation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I deeply thank you for your great contributions in Wikipedia. I'm personally honored to have a tireless user like you as my colleague here. Now, that I reviewed more of your edits, it is getting more interesting, that most-likely a significant amount of your edits on right-wing related articles probably do not meet wp:biased & Neutral point of view. But unfortunately, I have difficulties with my cancer disease, and I can't work properly, in details. I'm just reading edits and reviewing them. But I will be back soon to discuss with you. Please forgive me because of that. But before, I will leave here what exactly said in Talk:Dinesh D'Souza which will make you more familiar with I want to imply about this phenomena (Anti-Right-wing bias in Wikipedia). Bias widely occurred, and I demand every one of us editors to follow policies and not get Orwellian and Ministry of truth-ish by using biased Left-wing sources against right-wings or vice versa. So this is my rationale related to this topic and I will be back and see you soon. "As a leftist, I got quite shocked when I saw we add the label Far-Right To the lead of articles like Dinesh Dsouza article, but we don't have the same approach to the article of an actual far-left, such as Noam Chomsky. Being an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism), Chomsky is self-evidently a far-left. He approved his ideology, but Dsouza didn't. He rejected the idea of being far-right, argued against it. Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists and lean to far-left (including the Atlantic). These sources aren't by any means valid in this particular situation, as they have political self-interest against Dinesh Dsouza and right-wing politics. According to that logic I will remove, far-right claim from the lead, and will add it to another lower section as claim from his critiques (who are mostly leftist, far-left and anti-right-wing). If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him). So far-right claim is biased, defamatory, disputed and consequently should be removed from the lead. Thank you very much."

- The Stray Dog Talk Page   02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You may wish to revisit that talk page, where I proposed replacing the term "far-right" earlier today. In replying to your original post there, all I asked was for you to provide sourcing to support your suggested change; you never did, but I ended up finding the time to do a review of the sourcing today and based on that proposed the change. You'll see in my comment I actually addressed you and a few others who had objected to the wording in the page without providing any kind of sourcing to illustrate that it's not the widely used term for him: As a note to those above who've objected to the far-right descriptor, providing this kind of breakdown of the existing sourcing when making your comments would have been helpful. Not everyone who watchlists a page is super familiar with the available sourcing on the topic, and so it's hard to evaluate proposals when sources are not provided alongside them.
 * In the future, perhaps gather your details and diffs before making serious accusations against other users, rather than making evidently erroneous accusations and then saying you can't provide details. I am sorry to hear your cancer is affecting your editing; I hope you are recovering well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being good to me. I responded to you in that page. And also I promise that I will be back and we will improve those articles together. Wish you the best. The Stray Dog   Talk Page   02:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey
You just thanked me for my edit on Enrique Tarrio's page. Your home page says you edit on a variety of topics. Would you like to work on an article for a classic song I've been meaning to finish?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * What's the article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Return to Sender"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Cool, I'll check it out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the big problems with the article are the charts sections and the opening. Also, the composition and reception sections could be expanded if possible.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Also, I have no clue how to add a sample of the song to the article. Do you?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I've never done it before, but I bet it's pretty easy to figure out by looking at other articles. I pulled up Featured articles and looked at "Today" (great song, by the way), which has a clip. You'll need to pick a short section of the song, since we can only use a portion of the song that is "short in relation to the duration of the recorded track". Normally people pick a portion of the song that is particularly illustrative of something mentioned in the article; maybe "its up-tempo, 'gently rock[ing]' beat"? If you have a high quality version of the recording, you'll also want to reduce the quality to meet the "of inferior quality to the original recording" stipulation. Once that's all ready, you can upload it and use the Non-free audio sample template, and add a fair use rationale like the one at File:Today (Smashing Pumpkins song - sample).ogg. If you have any trouble with the technical side of this, let me know the timestamps of the portion of the song you want to use and I can try to clip it for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A low-quality snippet of the track can be found in this [|movie trailer]. I'd use 0:41 to 0:53 before the horn noise that's not part of the song. Thanks!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Magicatthemovies.

Citation Question
Hey, I wanted to point out a citation that is being used on alt-tech, but I do not think it fits WP:RS https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals This specific article is a rewrite of a news blog, which is not regarded as a RS, and I don't believe it meets Wiki's high standards for citation since its Tertiary and not an independently written article, its a copy. However, I do not have the experience you do on Wiki and I might be missing something, so I do not want to make a change unless you agree. It's not a major change to the page at all, it would only remove Triller from Alt-Tech. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean when you say it's a rewrite of a news blog? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The PCMAG article copies images and summarized another website article called Cybernews. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant they were actually reprinting another site's reporting. That's an interesting question: whether we should consider this PC Mag's reliability or Cybernews'. My inclination is the former, as I would think their editorial oversight would extend to verifying the claims they were reporting upon. As for Cybernews, I'm not seeing any discussion of it at RSN, but it appears to have editorial oversight:, so I'm not convinced it is unreliable itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When reviewing Notability and Reliable_sources, it seems to me it should be a secondary source as a citation. In this case, PCMag is not secondary source. I'm thinking it should be replaced with Cybernews, but Cybernews needs to be an RS. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would consider that PC Mag source a secondary source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wanted to bring it to your attention. I will defer to your understanding here as you have more experience. Thanks. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear GorillaWarfare, I just came across your page yesterday, I work mostly on the German Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for your refreshing example of excellence. Really inspiring. Best wishes, --Nanorsuaq (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Need your advice
Hi there seeking your advice, I noticed you changed the protection level on List of coups and coup attempts due to edit warring, and I think it's happening again. There was constructive conversation and evidence that led to the removal of an entry related to the "storming of the capitol" from this page, you can see it in the talk page. However there has been multiple restorations of this entry without valid source or reference, engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the restorations come from different anonymous IP addresses. It looks shady. I feel that it is important to not mislabel these events, so have been reverting these entries I believe in good faith, but I also do not want to engage in edit warring myself... can you advise how to move forward in dealing with this situation? Thanks in advance!!

BluePillx (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I recommend a longer protection (2 weeks full protection perhaps, or at least ECP). Nobody has done a decent analysis of the weight of terms used by reliable sources. And those who advocate including it aren't inclined to meet the WP:BURDEN of supporting it as long as it's in there. I've kinda bowed out. The page was semi-protected and I answered a couple of edit requests, the first to decline removing the entry, and for the second request I changed my mind and removed the entry after some thought and looking at sources myself, particularly following the related discussion at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Indef semi is appropriate as a standard protection level for that page, with full or ECP reserved for content disputes such as this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's disappointing to see that people are warring over it without much attempt to discuss. I've fully protected the page again, this time for one week. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Love of My Life page
I don't understand why adding CITED information that proves the statement added to the article is considered ”vandalism”.

The vandalism was in the removing of the valid Information.

Also, wasn't I supposed to get multiple warnings before my right to edit was removed?

Can you please tell me what is not correct in this? :

The Breakup song  was written by Freddie Mercury. Mercury never publicly disclosed the song's muse. He stated in an interview: "There isn’t really any connection between the music and my life. 'Love of My Life,' for instance, I simply made up.” However, Freddie wrote the break-up song while in the midst of he and Mary Austin's relationship changing and in the beginnings of their break up.

But, Mercury often claimed he was against stating and didn't like reporters asking about, the meanings of his songs. So he would flippantly dismiss the question by saying they weren‘t about anything. " ''You should never ask me about my lyrics. People ask, "Why did you write such and such a lyric and what does it mean? I don’t like to explain what I was thinking when I wrote a song. I think that’s awful. That’s not what it’s all about. I don’t like to analyse it. I prefer people to put their own interpretation upon it — to read into it whatever they like.''”

Freddie has stated many times that his love songs were based off of his love life. He stated in interviews:. "I feel I’ve gone through all those things myself too, so basically I’m encompassing and actually gathering that research and putting them into songs. I like writing romantic songs about love because there’s much to do with me. I have always written those. I mean, since the early days... There are many things that influence you to make music, almost all that surrounds you.”

John Reid said the song had been written about Mercury’s boyfriend at the time, David Minns: "Freddie actually wrote 'Love of My Life,' for David Minns. Freddie told me that. 'Love of My Life,' was for Minns."

However, ”Love of My Life" had already been written before Freddie and Minns first met. It could not have been inspired by David Minns. The timeline precludes David Minns as the inspiration for "Love of My Life'.’ David Minns, in his book, twice says when he met Freddie, Freddie complained about how long the recording of "A Night At the Opera" (ANATO) was taking. “Oh, i’m just a bit pissed off with the way things are going with the new album, it’s taking forever.” and "l remember him telling me before we said goodbye that night that he often despaired of ever seeing it finished as the recordings had been going on for so long, " BomiRustomji (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I describe your edits as vandalism. If you look at my edit summary you will see: Protected "Love of My Life (Queen song)": Edit warring / content dispute -- discuss your suggested changes on the talk page; do not continuously war over them. I am sure you know much more about Queen and his work than I do; I have no idea whether what you are adding is correct or not. However I do see that the topic of who inspired the song has been disputed at length on the talk page, and I saw the ongoing edit war between you and what I later determined to be a handful of sockpuppets. Regardless of who is right, it is not okay to war over the content of the page; please establish consensus for your suggested version on the talk page and then it can be introduced to the article itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@gorillawarfare I’m trying to discover how this works. So I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way.

What I don't understand is that if you determined that sock puppets were removing the information, why would you assist them in their endeavor?

If they’re sock puppets, they’re not arguing in good faith, correct?

However I provided sources.

All I know is the page is now left with incomplete false information. For instance I provided proof the song was written before David Minns ever met Freddie. ... From Minns himself.

Yet a claim that it was about him was left there. The timeline of when the song was written definitively disproves the claim.

I don't understand why the content I added was removed. A moderator had already RESTORED it because the page was being vandalized because of the removal, and then you helped the vandals get what they wanted.

Couldnt the info had been left as as is? So it could be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is pretty standard to restore pages to the pre-edit war revision while discussion occurs. All revisions to a page are saved in the page history, so if you wish to show your suggested changes you can just link to that. Although this recent dispute involved you and a handful of sockpuppets, the issue appears to go all the way back to 2018, and it doesn't appear any consensus was reached as the discussions died off. I would recommend starting a new discussion on that talk page, laying out your sourcing, and making the arguments you are making here. It is not me you need to convince; it is other editors of that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did lay out the sourcing. The arguments are being ignored because the vandals have been given gatekeeping power.

A reason I'm discussing it with you is because I think you made an error in including my original edit as the beginning of the war. Those sock puppets deleted the info without any attempt to discuss it. They vandalized what was added.

I understand now that I misunderstood the process. When I changed things back, I gave the reasons why when I did it and I thought that WAS part of the ”talk” page. But there was no attempt to discuss the content, it was just summarily deleted.

No one challenged the sources I used, they just vandalized by deleting. And then you came in and did what the vandals wanted.

In any case. I'm not sure how I'm to discuss this with sock puppets. It seems to me sock puppets have been given the power of all gatekeeping.

If there’s no one arguing in good faith, and just summarily deleting, ignoring any sourcing... there’s no one to discuss it wuth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the discussions on the talk page — this subject has been discussed since as far back as 2018, far before these sockpuppets existed. I would recommend pinging some of the people involved in those discussions. You do not have to discuss this with the sockpuppets, who will not be able to contribute to the discussion as they have been blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have just done that for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that advice. I appreciate it. Two more questions:

What if those that are pinged never respond? (Maybe they no longer participate here on Wiki) How is consensus formally reached?

I wish this process was more user friendly.. BomiRustomji (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I happen to know that GB fan is a highly active editor, so they at least will see the ping if not reply to it. SummerPhD was too, though it looks like they haven't edited so recently. Emotioness Expression last edited about a week ago. Regardless, if editors don't engage there are other venues to get outside input. WP:CONSENSUS gives more info on how consensus is determined. I suspect this issue won't need a formal discussion (like WP:RfC), but if necessary that could happen too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've come across this dispute as an uninvolved editor, and I can tell you that the page is locked with a false quote in it. The statement that John Reid said the song was written "for his only love Mary" is cited to a book, Somebody to Love: The Life, Death and Legacy of Freddie Mercury p. 115. That page of that book is available to read online at Google Books, and quite clearly says:


 * Written originally on the piano but adapted for guitar by Brian May, it has often been considered a love song for Mary Austin but, during the writing of this book, Queen's manager of the time, John Reid, revealed who the song was really about: 'Freddie actually wrote "Love Of My Life" for David Minns. Freddie told me that. "Love Of My Life" was for Minns.'


 * Now, you may or may not agree that this is true, and you may or may not think it belongs in the lede. But you can't falsify a quote from a published source. This should be fixed immediately. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I stepped in as an admin to end the edit warring on the page, not to enforce a "correct" version of the page. As I said to Bomi above, I have little familiarity with this subject area, and am certainly not going to mix my uninvolved admin actions with becoming involved in a content dispute about which I know very little. Please raise your concern at the article talk page for discussion among people who can actually provide an informed opinion on the content issue. If an edit needs to be made urgently, you can use the edit request process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of getting involved in Wikipedia's byzantine dispute resolution process again. You have made an error, no doubt in good faith, but an error nonetheless, and I have brought it to your attention. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Engaging in discussion on a talk page isn't "byzantine". If you want to make a non-controversial edit (such as correcting an obvious error) in an article you can't edit, then make an edit request. Also, see The Wrong Version; an admin's job, when acting in an admin capacity rather than as an editor, is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project, and has tools available (like article protection and account blocking) to accomplish that. An admin shouldn't mix administrative acts with editorial decisions about which version is "correct" other than possibly reverting back to before the edit-war started. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you're not going to do anything helpful, then mind your own business. This page is unnecessarily byzantine.
 * , WP:RS/QUOTE says "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." This quote that you have locked into the page misrepresents a living person. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anachronist is correct, and please do not be so rude to them. Starting a talk page section and putting what you've said here into it is no more complicated than the edits you've made to my talk page. Thank you for doing so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess Edit requests is kind of daunting at first look. Basically, all you need to do is start a new section on the talk page, put the tag edit fully-protected at the top of the section, and put your proposed change under the tag. The tag causes your request to be listed on a category page, and any administrator reviewing that page can come along and assess the request during the protection period. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Love_of_My_Life_(Queen_song) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh. You're right. I just responded to a ping notification without first checking the article talk page. Nevermind, looks like all is well now. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hog Farm
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration
 * The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bezos stepping down as Amazon CEO
I read the NYT announcement on his intent to step down this summer and added it to the lede. After doing so, I saw that it had been added in the body a few minutes earlier, and you had sorted it out a bit after a few editors got it wrong. Feel free to edit the lede any way you see fit. Thanks. Activist (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems fine how it is now; I just happened to notice that someone had updated the article to suggest that he had already stepped down, which is what I wanted to fix. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I could see that you were assuring that the article remained factual. I also wanted to see if my edit was okay, so thanks for checking. Activist (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quazal.png
Thanks for uploading File:Quazal.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) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

 * Thanks for all your help with it! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for yours! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! X-Editor (talk) 6 February 2021, 02:00 (UTC)

RfPP on Sleepless
Hey, wanted to thank you for the protect on Sleepless - just had a question, is Protect under BLP correct for this type of article? I never know which to request for, and knowing for the future helps me sort out what I'm doing. NerdwiththehatTalk 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, no it isn't. Meant to select the "disruptive editing" preset! Thanks for catching that, I've adjusted the protection to the appropriate one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the update! NerdwiththehatTalk 20:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement log
Hi, could you please add your recent protections re: Poland to Arbitration enforcement log? Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did: GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Why did Vrba–Wetzler report need to be protected? SarahSV (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic area is "the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland", and it seemed to me all four articles for which protection was requested pretty clearly fit under that topic area. I imagine the requester noticed disruption at one of the articles and decided to request protection of a few that might be targeted similarly, which is reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It's peculiar. Please say who the requester was. The only thing that is happening is that Buidhe is trying to add a scholarly source to Witold Pilecki, which gives a more three-dimensional view of him (he is a Polish national hero). Polish editors have been reverting her. Auschwitz Protocols and Vrba–Wetzler report have nothing to do with Pilecki. There is nothing in them that anyone would find controversial. It's really strange to draw them into this. SarahSV (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There were four requests at RfPP (permalink in case they're archived). I have no idea what the history is with Buidhe that you're mentioning, but the fact remains that non-extended confirmed editors are not permitted to edit articles about antisemitism or the Holocaust in Poland. This protection won't prevent Buidhe from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Maybe the IP was having some fun. This illustrates how problematic the decision was to place these all under 30/500. Buidhe is struggling to add an academic source. Polish editors have lined up against her. Bob not snob arrives to help her. Therefore, one of the Polish editors requests 30/500 protection to keep him out.These articles can't be fixed unless the community supports the efforts (editors, admins, Arbs), but at every turn the opposite happens, which is why several of us have withdrawn from editing them. SarahSV (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jason Figgis
I have been updating the entry for Jason Figgis, film director. I now see that all the new additions have been removed and it has reverted to the previous version. A message was left saying the following: Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. An edit you recently made to Jason Figgis seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This was not done as a test. I am a film producer who works with Mr Figgis. These changes were made to bring his entry up to date. I would appreciate it if these additions were put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits were entirely unsourced. All edits to Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. Please also note our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Jason Figgis entry. I am not being paid to update it. I am updating it because it is several years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. "Who works with Mr. Figgis" made me think you were employed by him. Regardless, without adequate sourcing your changes can't be restored. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You asked if I am being paid to edit the entry. I have confirmed I am not. Please define your definition of 'adequate sourcing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, I was explaining why I thought that. Regarding sourcing, any statements about Figgis need to be supported by reliable sources. You can read the reliable sources policy, or WP:EYNTK is a much shorter primer for people just getting started editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of adding links when you removed all the new material - his website, IMDb links to films, online articles etc etc. Maybe a message should have been sent asking about adding sources before removing all my revisions/additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edits to biographies of living people need to be sourced as information is added; we are very sensitive about not allowing unverifiable statements about living people to remain. All of your edits are visible in the page history if you need to retrieve the changes (with sourcing, this time). However please note that WP:RSP is not a reliable source and should not be used. His website can be used, but please see WP:ABOUTSELF for limitations on which kinds of statements can be cited to a person's own comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Page lock
Why have you locked the page? 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to Super Bowl LV halftime show? I semi-protected it because it was receiving steady vandalism from unregistered contributors. If you would like to make changes to the page, you can suggest them on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't see any vandalism but I will make edit requests. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

An award for you

 * 😅 GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Redskin
Why did you say my edit was not constructive? Systematic racism cannot just be asserted without evidence. If there is evidence then it should be linked in the Redskin article, otherwise it can only be alleged. Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.220.151 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" doesn't make sense in that place. It's like saying that someone "called for the end to alleged poverty". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

mewe
this is true from zdnet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for information on how to add citations to the article. All additions must be verifiable, and inline citations allow other editors and readers to verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Auguste Piccard
Hello, I added the Auguste Piccard quote from the popular science magazine with citation. Can you please explain to me how this is misleading?

-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. There has been a campaign to add this quote to the page, because it has been misinterpreted by those who believe the earth is flat to support their theory. Without consensus, it should not be added. It's also poor placement for the quote—"in popular culture" sections are meant for things like references and allusions to the subject in fiction (as you can see by the other entries there), not for mentions of the actual person in history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from as far as the quote and the placing of said quote in that specific category.

However, I believe the mention of Piccard and his flight detailed in the magazine placed in “references in pop culture“ is appropriate given that popular science is a widely accepted factual magazine. What the reader interprets after they leave Wikipedia shouldn’t be up to the page editor. I removed the quote. Why was the article removed after I removed the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to begin a section on the article talk page to discuss inclusion of the quote, be my guest. That is where you would gain consensus for its inclusion, not here.
 * Regarding inclusion of the Popular Science piece as a source, I agree that is appropriate, and it is already used as a source and appropriately quoted in the article. However, as I have already explained, you are misunderstanding the purposes of "In popular culture" sections. They are specifically for references to the subject in things like fiction — for example, that there is a Star Trek character based around Piccard. They are not for including actual non-fiction publications about the person themselves—those are used in the rest of the article as they are relevant to the encyclopedic content about the person.
 * I will disavail you of one thing: we do not include quotes that can be misleading (and have been used to mislead in the past) and then hope readers don't happen to misinterpret them, we avoid misleading quotes entirely: Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source. (WP:QUOTE).
 * Why was the article removed after I removed the quote? I'm not sure what you're asking here. The article is still at Auguste Piccard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify and explain the error of my ways ;) I have learned something. I did not realize the complexity involved with making a contribution. Are there any resources available to learn more?

-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Getting started is a great list of things to help you get going, and WP:EYNTK is a good, quick primer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Some info about your username, which you may already know
Thank you for the thank-you, if that makes sense. The oldest pun I know of that relates to your username comes from Chapter 48 ("Wellington") in 1066 and All That (1930):

The second part of the Napoleonic War was fought in Spain and Portugal and was called the Gorilla War on account of the primitive Spanish method of fighting.

''Wellington became so impatient with the slow movements of the French troops that he occupied himself drawing imaginary lines all over Portugal and thus marking off the fighting zone; he made a rule that defeats beyond these lines did not count, while any French army that came his side of them was out of bounds. Having thus insured himself against disaster, Wellington won startling victories at Devalera, Albumina, Salamanda, etc.''

Rhythdybiau (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't know! Thank you for that information, that's fascinating. That's quite a strategy of Wellington's. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec
Hello, I'll see what I can do in terms of neutral items to add. I've found a book he wrote. I believe in letting the subjects speak for themselves regardless of their point of views' popularity. Wikipedia should point people to factual stuff that merits inclusion and reflects a fair presentation. Too many editors/volunteers are pushing or sneaking in their own political ideas and opinions in lately & ruining articles. Lmlmss44 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:ABOUTSELF—we can only use peoples' statements about themselves in very limited circumstances, and for very basic factual information. Posobeic is welcome to speak for himself, and clearly has done so by publishing a book, but Wikipedia will continue to reflect what is published in reliable sources as it is designed to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I'll look for things he's created and add them. However, because this guy is a conservative, my guess is that someone will most likely delete/revert any such valid additions. I don't know how to handle that if it occurs.Lmlmss44 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you follow policy it should be fine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I am more than acquainted with people being rude to me on this project, So sorry. Hope this kitten helps.

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Thanks GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Back to form
Hi there, this user has continued in their previous form after their recent block. Would you agree reimposition is warranted? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I've blocked for a longer period. In the future you may find you get a quicker response by going to AIV than posting on the blocking admin's talk page—I was offline so am only just seeing this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going for ease rather than speed on this occasion as I knew you were familiar with their antics, they weren't making a lot of edits and I knew I'd be able to keep an eye on them in the interim. If I'd thought it was urgent and had the time to do a proper report, I would have gone the AIV route. (Subtext, I may well give you a shout if they resume this MO after their block.) Again, grateful thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...which they have, with more baseless fiddling with nationality (interestingly the reverse of their previous contribution there) and the unexplained blanking of some text. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've reblocked, this time for considerably longer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 17:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been returning with new IPs, the latest being User:62.255.130.222. Would you mind? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stuck a week of protection on the page and blocked the IP for the same duration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, they've returned again as soon as the protection expired. Could you extend it please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Protected for two months this time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Agro Nocerino Sarnese mishap
Hey GW. Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at the dates and somehow (somehow!) overlooked that you were already attending to this matter. Sorry for stepping on any toes. The new ANI report, which was bumped and which I had merged with the parent thread, is here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks and sorry, again. Regards, El_C 15:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, your action looks appropriate to me and I'm glad someone stepped in to deal with the continuing issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * GW, thanks. That's a relief. Glad I could help and, as always, I appreciate your support. Best, El_C 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits needing approval
Could you approve the edits I made to Gab about how their website briefly went offline? Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm still wary of the Twitter stuff being included, since their Twitter goes offline all the time, but I guess if reliable sources think it's significant then it ought to be mentioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Article on incels
Hello, I think this could be useful to you for the incel wikipedia page: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=commstudiespapers

It seems very thorough since it has a section from the origins of the online subculture in the section "Appropriation: From Alana to Elliot Rodger" (page eleven) to modern day

Thebetoof (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, thank you, that looks like a promising source! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I need guidance, please
. Smarter than me. Out of my depth. Need someone sharp. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left my thoughts in a note on the appeal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Babylon Bee Discussion
I had gone on vacation and hadn't realized the discussion had continued on past our initial responses. Sorry you had to handle all the angry IPs by yourself. Good edits btw, I'm not sure that came across in my comments, but wanted to make sure you knew I thought you did a great job managing all of it. Squatch347 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks! For some reason the Bee and NewsBusters both noticed and drew attention to the talk page discussion, and NewsBusters in particular portrayed it as though Wikipedia editors were seriously considering removing the satire label. I think that's why the talk page has been more active than usual lately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Donovan page
I am trying to correct many defaming statements that exist on this page and update it with objective truths about the individual. As it stands, the page is poorly written and is set up to pain the image of someone the author is not. You have claimed some kind of authority over this page, which is incredibly brazen considering you are not Jack Donovan himself. I will continue to add my changes as they are NOT considered promotional. Listing someone's works and beliefs is not promoting them any more than any other author, artist, or musicians' Wiki page does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also trying to improve the page, but two wrongs do not make a right. The content you are trying to war into the article is egregiously promotional and also a copyright violation. Please do not restore it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted. Have you considered that the person in question has tried to dispute much of this information through the talk page? What exactly are you trying to correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the talk page, you will see where I have replied to him (and helped him verify his account). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your GorillaShip (Warship?) you may not have noticed the creation of an alternative copy of an existing article, at Jack Donovan (author). I took the liberty of redirecting it to Jack Donovan (writer), but only regretfully, as I particularly liked the phrases:
 * "seminal work on masculinity", and
 * "According to his website, Donovan "believes men and women are different. He also states: I believe men and women are different."
 * If you could see your way clear to incorporating them into Jack Donovan (writer), I think our readers will appreciate it. Well, at least some of them. --GRuban (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh... those are more copyvios, which I've also had to tag in the page history of the existing article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A shame. I would have loved to WP:IAR for writing of such caliber, just reading it brought me great pleasure. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both ✅. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - My typos and poor referencing are an indication of my lack of experience editing on Wikipedia. I would still like to make contributions to this page. Might I start by simply adding a list of the author's published works? Or does a list somehow indicate promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue was not typos and poor referencing, it was wholesale removal of sourced information which you replaced with copyrighted content. I would recommend slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies before trying to edit; I find WP:EYNTK is a useful primer, and Help:Getting started as well. I've already added a list of Donovan's books to the article, which I believe is complete. The amount of detail I've added is about as much as we can add without secondary reliable sources; otherwise it is undue coverage of the books. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a bit more sources, actually:


 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/38039011-1cef-43e7-9098-e373e77a9ee5
 * https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/14/a-thing-for-men-in-uniforms/
 * https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/03/27/chorus-violence-jack-donovan-and-organizing-power-male-supremacy
 * If you don't put them in, I may get to it one of these days, but I wouldn't want to compete. Because, you know, https://web.archive.org/web/20140709235938/http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/21/there-is-no-honor-in-competition-with-women/ --GRuban (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are helpful links. I'm planning to go looking for some more sourcing tonight after finishing reviewing what's there already, but feel free to jump in anytime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you might also have a look at Bryan Johnson since you seem to be more in touch with this editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Bryan Johanson is the right article, sorry, too early and no coffee CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I've gone ahead and PRODed the article as a wholly unreferenced BLP, but maybe Tactical Guitarist would be interested in trying to dig up some reliable, independent sources. Feel free to remove the PROD tag if you do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Malebranche
I think we can get a very interesting article here. Donovan is quite the multifaceted individual. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD2HQMyy-OQ&feature=emb_logo Interview of Donovan, as "Jack Malebranche", and representative of the Church of Satan on The Way of the Master. Really. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235385/ says 6 May 2005.
 * He was also interviewed under that name in The Butch Factor which we have an article on. https://vimeo.com/40527464 is the, or at least a, relevant clip.
 * And finally, Jack Malebranche is a deleted article. It should at least redirect to Jack Donovan (writer), and possibly should be undeleted before making it a redirect, so we can use its content.
 * lulu.com/en/au/shop/jack-malebranche/for-the-carnal-connoisseur-lust-magazine-archives-2003-2006/ebook/product-16qpvgjy.html?page=1&pageSize=4 "In 2003, members of the Church of Satan launched Lust Magazine at www.sataniclust.com, intending to present a Satanic perspective on human sexuality. For the Carnal Connoisseur - Lust Magazine: The Archives 2003-2006 is a printed record of some of Lust’s best material, which includes interviews with renegade filmmaker Bruce LaBruce, Patrick Califia, as well as a carnal cornucopia of humorous and provocative essays, fiction and explorations of unusual fetishes and modes of human sexuality. A complete archive of Rev. Shiva Rodriguez’s popular “Carnal Sutra” sex advice column is included, as well as a selection of essays from Rev. Jack Malebranche’s seminal column “The Homosexual Warlock” that spawned his 2007 Scapegoat Publishing release, Androphilia." There's that word again...--GRuban (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I made the redirect, but I didn't undelete. There's not much there in the deleted revisions—a few sentences, all unsourced, and mostly stuff already mentioned in the existing article. As for the Church of Satan, that's mentioned in the article already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I used the the McKay reference because it’s concise. McKay wrote a significantly longer essay on his website called “What Is the Core of Masculinity?” He writes about Donovan’s philosophy extensively. It is not a commentary on a blog. I don’t think it could be seen as promotional. McKay is an essayist and Author. He has written several books on masculinity. His online magazine is the leading independent online magazine for men, with 10 million monthly views. He writes articles/essays on masculinity regularly. I’d still like to include a “Reception” paragraph concerning McKay’s views on Donovan. Here is a link to the McKay essay. His commentary on Donovan’s philosophy in The Way of Men begins with a section titled “Keeping the Perimeter.”

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/ Cleantheshymn (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We would need a reliable, independent source to comment on McKay's views on Donovan for them to be included. The Forbes article was the right idea, except that articles by "Forbes contributors" are not RS. McKay's opinions themselves should not be cited directly, as it is the secondary source that shows that they are somehow worth noting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

So...clarifying. If McKay makes a comment on Donovan in his own publication it’s not useable. But, if McKay comments on Donovan in a source that is not his own then it’s useable. Cleantheshymn (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If a reliable, independent source decides to publish what McKay has said about Donovan, then we can use it. Think of it this way: if I write on my blog (or self-publish a book, or put it on my website TheArtOfIceCream.com) that I think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, who cares? But if the New York Times publishes an article that describes what I've said about ice cream (and presumably explains why my opinion matters), that might be usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
I noticed that you tagged Bryan Johanson with prod blp for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The are: (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this criterion is discrete from the one used after a proper placement of the tag, and fully read Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion via this process. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A simian for you!

 * Why thank you! I have to wonder why the "Red Tape Rampaging Ape" isn't one of the default barnstars available... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It really should be! Bureaucracy Battering Barracuda should be an option too!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TJMSmith
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
 * A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Page mover/delete-redirect.
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
 * There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news
 * When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
 * When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
 * There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (T275322).

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tell us about your experiences editing the English Wikipedia!
Hi GorillaWarfare!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on article and user talk pages. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

If you are 18 years or older, I would love to have you participate. Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? . The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone. We can find a platform that works best for you.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: tbipat@uw.edu via Wikipedia: tbipat

Best, Tbipat (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-racism
Good day, Is the deletion of my edit to the history section of anti-racism due to the lack of a reference or do you believe the edit I made to be less than factual. Thank you for your time;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.250.21 (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit summary, you will see I wrote that my concern was that it was unsourced. Please be sure to cite reliable sources when introducing new information to Wikipedia articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Donk_Enby/ Crash Override Article
As a result of the Parler scrape and now the Myanmar governmental hack, it is about time for the Austrian hacker Donk_Enby/Crash Override to have her own article, as the notability threshold is clearly breached.

From the meaning behind her name, to the major international events, she deserves a curated BLP, do you agree? I think you are competent to take a crack at it, and will attempt a fair summaryTuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not super familiar with the Myanmar government hack, so would have to read up. Most of the coverage I saw from the Parler hack seemed to be more about the breach and less about her, though in fairness I was mostly reading about it for updating the Parler article and less for writing about her. Do you have any good sources to kick off my research on her involvement in the Myanmar breach? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In contrast to other "security researchers", Donk has tended to lawfully exploit the target code - which is interesting. It is now hosted on DDOS Secrets.

An article to be built upon is fitting at this point, I think

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/google-has-pulled-down-a-propaganda-blog-backing-the-military-coup-in-myanmar-after-outcry-by-online-activists/ar-BB1dRDWG

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/myanmar-google-propaganda-blog-military-coup-donk-enby-2021-2

https://www.ibtimes.sg/hacker-donk-enby-archives-every-deleted-parler-post-giving-incriminating-evidence-capitol-54837

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is helpful for getting started learning about the Myanmar hack! (Though just as a note the first two sources are the same). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tillie Kottman, 21 years old, had their home and their parents home raided by Swiss authorities.

Kotterman's is also the founder of Lawnchair Launcher Foundation.

Bloomberg, Fortune, articles piling in

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/12/22328344/tillie-kottmann-hacker-raid-switzerland-verkada-cameras

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is a fascinating article about the depth of the Verkada camera breach, with an interview with Kotterman

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/verkada-hack-tesla-nissan-equinox-cloudflare/#app TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

About changing the 2020 election to 1876.
Clearly a mistake - was trying to copy and paste the 1876 election into my sandbox for creative, map making purposeses.

Apologies. ("; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg (talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, mistakes happen! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Not as daily recently, but you're welcome! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft hack
Hello Molly! I've been working today on an article to cover the recent Microsot Exchange Server attacks. It's currently awaiting review. Given your background, would you be interested in working on it? Also, would you think the incident (and its article) can go to ITN? Assem Khidhr (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is really nice work! I'm doing some copyedits and stuff, and I'll probably perform the requested merge, but it already looks great. As for ITN, I'm not particularly active in that project so I can't speak to the likelihood of it being accepted, but I would definitely nominate it to see what others think! GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RS for super straight being a fake sexuality?
What RS says super sexualities are fake? I have no idea, but if we're going to call it fake, we need a citation for this.

Incidentally, nice to meet you. Yours, Joe (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the sources currently used in the target of the hatnote describe how it's trolling, and none of them give the claim that it's a sexuality any credence. If you would prefer something like "social media trend" that's fine, but we cannot say it is a "sexuality" when all sources describe it in ways like this: "Trolls, bigots, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists are reframing their harassment of transgender people as the supposed new sexual identity 'super straight.'" GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I glanced through those sources and couldn't find anyone calling it a 'fake sexuality' (maybe I missed it?). All the sources called it a social media trend or something similar. Good suggestion, let's go with that. Joe (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and one question
Dear Molly, thank you for making my additions to "Manila City Jail" look more presentable. I must confess: it's still my first month here (so I'm still struggeling with getting references and source text right and all that). Your profile indicates a friendly and knowledgable person, so you might be able to tell me one thing: I have the plan to re-write one of the biographic articles which has been flagged for the lack of citations. My plan is to include substantial new sources, which also means that some of the original text (with almost no sources) would have to go and the proportion of what remains would be small after I finished. So of course I am aware that this might get me into trouble, that's why I prefer to aks before putting too much work into it. Should I explain what I did and why I did it on the Discussion page of the article or would that seem weird? In addition I'm not a native speaker and the best sources available have not been translated... Greetings from Germany Llydia (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! It's totally fine to leave a note on the article talk page to explain what you're planning to do (or what you did), and can be helpful since we are limited in how long edit summaries can be. Although it's possible that someone might object to you removing content from the page, it's generally accepted that unsourced content ought to be removed, particularly in the case of living people, so hopefully what you're planning to do won't be controversial. As for the issue of non-English sources, are you familiar with WP:NONENG? While we do prefer English sources because they are easier to verify, it's okay to use non-English sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Molly, thank you for pointing out NONENG to me! The rules within the English and the German wikipedia are quite different, however English sources are way easier to understand for most non-native speakers (e.g. in Europe almost everybody starts with English lessons by the age of 10). My plan is to expand and correct the article about the last female killer who was publicly executed in Bremen (1831). A German author wrote a book about her that is partially based on details from the original trial records. It might sound strange, however I share his perception that history has wronged this woman and the evidence is out there, it just hasn't arrived here jet. I will look out for additional English sources. Greetings, Llydia (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Molly aka GorillaWarfare, I just wanted to let you know, that your article INCEL was mentioned in a new non-fiction book, I just read; https://www.klett-cotta.de/buch/Tropen-Sachbuch/Female_Choice/136739 on page 234 the author wrote (in German though, so I translated it for you) "The English Wikipedia entry about Incel contains a list of of numerous attempted and accomplished homicides, executed by people who directly or indirectly refer to themselves as incels." There seems to be a direct link to the fact, that there is a difference between males and females regarding the importance of sexual activity in general (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Ranking_of_sex). Do you know if the information about this basic gender difference has been published with a factual basis yet? Llydia (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the book! The variance in importance of sex to men and women is surely something that has been researched, and I know I've come across mentions of it in my research on manosphere articles, but it's not a subject I've researched extensively. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pidgeon Pagonis
IP was warned, but I think a comment like this might (ought to?) be a bannable offense. Funcrunch (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I noticed your comment on my watchlist and blocked this IP displaying reprehensible behavior longer than I usually block IPs. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much!
Will do—funnily enough, I did think it didn't usually take that long (if you know what I mean). —— Serial  17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

DDoS-Guard revert and reliable sources
Hello, I noticed you reverted my recent edit to DDoS-Guard with the note "find secondary RS please". You are the article's main author and I am merely an IP address, but I wonder if you would reconsider. I added the sentence "DDoS-Guard also provides services to Sci-Hub" with two independent sources as citations (independent of each other and independent of the subjects of the article). From my reading of No_original_research and Reliable_sources, though, I would argue the sources were adequate. Secondary sources are not absolutely required, and primary sources may be used for straightforward statements of fact. W3Techs is reliable enough to be cited in 95 Wikipedia articles already. Providing two sources for the same statement adds verifiability. Anyway, thanks for your attention to detail in the article. 209.6.195.188 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the kinda content primary sources are used for. If we're using domain analysis tools to decide which websites to mention as users of the site we'd be here all day writing very, very long lists (think about the list you could write at Cloudflare!). The existence of reliable secondary sources not only makes the content reliably verifiable, but also establishes what content is actually worth including. Also, technically, not sure this even qualifies as a primary source. It's like me running a ping and whois on my computer and calling that a source, and I'm not sure that's even a 'primary source' (not sure what it's called tbh, just... research?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your point kind of argues against having a "Clients" section in the article, IMO. Who merits inclusion? For Cloudflare, there's a "Controversies" section, which discusses the objectionable clients that company has served. For Epik (company) (article created by GorillaWarfare) there's a section titled "Hosting of far-right and illicit content"; perhaps something similar would be a good heading for this section in DDoS-Guard? 209.6.195.188 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it argues against having clients listed on the basis of running a ping and whois in your Terminal (or equivalent; like W3Bin.com). If reliable secondary sources don't cover it, it likely doesn't merit inclusion. In the clients on that article, and controversies for Cloudflare, the issues are described in RS. (there's probably a PAG about this somewhere, but I don't have the shortcut handy.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference between what you added and the section in Epik is that the section in the Epik article is supported by reliable, independent sources. I actually know I have removed statements that Epik has provided services to so-and-so (I think it may have been Parler) that were based on similar original research to yours—reliable sources later came out covering it, and then it was added. The same thing should be done for DDoSGuard—if RS cover that DDoSGuard provides services for SciHub, then we know it is noteworthy enough to include. Otherwise, it is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something could be done
Here's series of poorly formated text-walls of extremely defamatory and abusive language against involved editors, primarily myself, by unsigned anonymous IP (I actually suspect that person behind these two IP's is admin and bureaucrat(!) at bs.wiki project, but I think they don't have an account on en.wiki): followed by: it just kept coming: and coming:
 * Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic. ;
 * Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons. ;
 * This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all. ;
 * In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet. ;
 * I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic. ;
 * This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications. ;
 * All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic)(!?) sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage:
 * The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately
 * Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent. ;
 * User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs. ;
 * SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers.

Needless to say, but just for the record, non of the involved editors have more than a handful of edits on mentioned bs. and hr.wiki. However, it is impossible to have usual, normal discussion at this TP for two reasons, these assaults and the fact that they are posting them in form of enormous walls of really poorly formatted text. Are these abuses blockable?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any reason you brought this here rather than ANI? I'm briefly checking my talk page but not available to look at this in-depth at the moment, nor am I necessarily the best person to look at it, I don't think. Would you be willing to raise it there? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just about to do that when I spotted this "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents introductory box, so I followed the link they suggest there and found a list with your name, which I chose without particular reason :-) :Anyhow, I will move this to ANI - just, please, tell me what do you think about this, if you could see and know that everything posted here is exactly as it is written; and is ANI proper board for this report?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Yeah, ANI is probably the place for it, and the report here looks fine for posting there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Stay safe and take care!-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

An objective, apolitical fact.
She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)? Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.

Opertinicy (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to publish her deadname to get accurate information on her, nor is that a compelling reason to contravene Wikipedia's standards on the treatment of trans people who were not notable under their former names. Either way, this is a conversation that should be had at the discussion on the article talk page, where it has already been discussed at length, not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)? Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.

Wikipedia, by it's stated purpose, shouldn't ignore simple facts about *public officials*. We can discuss this in a dispute resolution if you would like.

Opertinicy (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a wikipedia admin, seemingly fighting for special interests and not the objective purpose of wikipedia. I have no chance. But I'll likely stop donating if this how Wiki foundation has deviated from their mission. Very different than it was 15 years ago when objectivity and the purpose were virtuous. I won't donate to censorship. Opertinicy (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the one following the MOS here; you are the one arguing it ought to be ignored. I have explained to you how to begin a discussion to change the guideline; feel free to do that rather than continuing to pointlessly post here and insult me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the issue is - reliable sources discuss her as Rachel, so there's no issue getting information about her without including her deadname. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's an encyclopedia, she has expressed ZERO objections to her birth name being public, and she's a public official. Please (re)read WP:PURPOSE. Opertinicy (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is unfortunate and what you're explaining is counterproductive and reinforces the 'taboo' of those who have transitioned.I completely disagree for the aforementioned reasons (including the mission/purpose statement of Wikipedia). I think you're making folks who have transitioned a more taboo subject than what it should be. As I've said: assuming that she regrets or is offended by inclusion of her birth name is creating an unnecessary issue based on assumptions. She is not ashamed of her transition or past, and calling it 'deadnaming' is editorializing. If she said she was ok with it, would that make it appropriate in an encyclopedic article? Articles should be objective, not editorials.

Opertinicy (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to begin a new discussion to change the guidance, feel free to do so at WT:MOS. But commenting here won't make any difference towards changing past consensus.
 * If Levine said somewhere that she wished her birthname to be included in the Wikipedia article about her, then yes, I imagine we would use it. Do you know of something?
 * As for your commentary on the approach in general, in listening to trans people who've discussed Wikipedia's approach towards trans subjects, I have seen quite a lot of criticism of how liberal we are in using trans subjects' former names even under the current guidance. So I don't really share your concerns about taboo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't like using personal anecdotes on an encyclopedia, but I've worked in Democratic politics for many years and am quite liberal. I've met her on numerous occasions. What concerns me is the **censorship and assumptions** (which leads to the unfortunate policy that's clearly at odds with Wikipedia's purpose). Special interest/assumptions have no place on an encyclopedia; it's literally against the mission statement. Been donating to wikipedia for 14+ years; this direction is very unhealthy. Opertinicy (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have made your opinion very clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A new draft
Hi there! I created a draft article Draft:Isaac Saul a few months back, and because of all the work you have done related to political issues I thought it might be something you would be interested in reviewing if you have time. Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

New userbox
Hello, Molly, since you work in this area, I thought I'd alert you to this new userbox, Template:User mgtow. I was alerted to it because of vandalism done to it but thought you might like to know. I don't think it breaks any rules, I was just surprised to see it in 2021. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Might be worth an MfD to at least get community input, since MGTOW has been classified a male supremacist group. I'll nominate it in a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mgtow GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good to ask for feedback about this one. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just checking in to the deletion discussion and it went downhill fast. I'm surprised now that I was on the fence. And if it wasn't for an IP editor changing that userbox so that in put Category:Incels on the user page of everyone who used it, it probably would have been a long time before it was noticed. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Requested Move Close Request
Hi Gorilla Warfare, I was wondering if you could assess the consensus and close the move request at Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin please? 7 days have passed and now there's just a lot of back and forth and repetition, etc. I would like an admin to close this move discussion. Thank you and I'll highly appreciate it, Some1 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can put a request at WP:RFCC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Some1 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

An apology
I would like to apologize for all the disruptive edits I made to the Gab article in 2019. Not only do I completely regret my actions, but my political views and views in general have also changed drastically since then. I am not the same person I was in 2019 is the point I'm trying to make. I hope you can accept my apology. X-Editor (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am both cursed and blessed with a poor memory, so I honestly hadn't remembered you making disruptive edits in 2019. It's certainly not something I was holding against you :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your apology. I had no idea about your poor memory. X-Editor (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ❤️ GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you might also grab yourself a barnstar for—despite suggestion to the contrary—only having 0.4% of your total edits to AN/I, as opposed to, say, 6.7%. Happy days. ——  Serial  18:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Suppression request
Hi GW, just restored the diff that you suppressed at Talk:Rachel Levine. Can you suppress this new edit, as well? ― Tartan357  Talk 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've revision-deleted it (not suppressed) since it's pretty egregious, and emailed emergency@ because of the threat. That said any further requests should probably go to an admin who does not edit the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , out of curiosity, what's the difference between revision deletion and supression? ― Tartan357  Talk 22:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Revision deletion hides revisions from anyone who is not an administrator, of which there are on the English Wikipedia, and has a somewhat looser set of criteria than suppression. Suppression hides revisions from anyone who is not an oversighter, of which there are, and has a stricter set of criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lonsdale uses "him"
I did not intend to add that link in your voice, as though you yourself added it. I apologize for any confusion. However, I will suggest that you replace it, as it is very pertinent to the discussion. You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronoun, and you've ammended the section title to say "may use". The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all along. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#AA9">design</b></b> 16:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Lonsdale uses "tree", "he", or some other pronoun is not particularly pertinent to the discussion, which is about EEng's treatment of BLPs and other editors, not about the content discussion.
 * You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronoun I have accepted that Lonsdale uses he/him pronouns. I have no idea if he also uses "tree" or not. People sometimes use multiple pronouns (you'll often see people who use "she/they", for example), so using one pronoun does not necessarily mean a person does not use another.
 * The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all along If EEng had only been arguing that Lonsdale does not use the "tree" pronoun, we would not be at ANI. It is EEng's behavior that is under discussion, not the content of the article, which is properly being discussed at the article talk page.
 * If you would like to reinsert a link to the discussion section, feel free. Just don't insert it into the top of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Operation Sea Lion
GorillaWarfare,

I recently revised the above Wiki to update and include an additional published reference to support the revision. Slatersteven continues to insist on reverting the revision to an earlier, inaccurate version of this Wiki. As you recently put a lock on this, please do what you can about this situation to prevent continued reversions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4202:2EE0:A990:759B:B691:29D (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that El C has protected the page. Please note the summary: "IP, the matter was brought up by the other party at Talk:Operation_Sea_Lion. If you fail to engage in discussion there, you will be seen as effectively having abandoned your position (i.e. it is required)" GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned in Articles
Hi, I just wanted you to know that your account and name has been listed on two far-right pages BreitBart and Daily Stormer. I think its a policy violation? I am quite a newbie here, so just wanted you to know. Thanks! Interesting Geek (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hiya Interesting Geek, and welcome! Thanks, I knew about Breitbart but not the Daily Stormer. I'm not sure what you mean by a policy violation—if you mean a Wikipedian writing such articles is a policy violation, it certainly would be a violation of our harassment policy, but at least in the Breitbart case the writer is already banned from Wikipedia. If you mean linking to them on Wikipedia would be a policy violation, that has been the subject of some discussion, but generally it's best avoided (see Linking to external harassment). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * noted! Interesting Geek (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Bullying and harassment
Hello, I have a problem with a user Yozdek who keeps sending me notifications and repetitive messages, I wanted you to please be called to your attention by those facts. OaxacaGenius (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not already aware, you can mute a user in Special:Preferences (click the "Notifications" tab). I see Shushugah has also asked them to stop leaving you messages, so hopefully that resolves the talk page conversations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much GorillaWarfare apparently the user calmed down a bit.OaxacaGenius (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi, GW - about the recent pronoun discussion, and identity preferences. I realize and understand most of the concerns, and I do my best to respect an individual's wishes. One question that popped into my head: do we comply only with preferences that are applicable to gender, or does it also include other aspects of "being" and how one chooses to be identified, such as race, religion, and....well, what else, if anything? I like keeping up with the times and staying on the cutting edge of technology, science and cultural trends, but it's rather hard to do considering I've been in lockdown on and off on this small island for the past year where there are no universities, and barely what we'd call a hospital. I am very internet dependent, and that's a bit unnerving, too. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think in many cases we only know someone's race, religion, etc. in the first place through self-identification. But I think your two examples (race and religion) would probably be approached differently:
 * Religion is largely self-decided, so I think we generally just go by what people say. I don't know if I can envision a case where someone would say "I'm a Catholic" and we would say "no they aren't"−how would we even determine that? But for whatever the neopronoun equivalent of religion is (neoreligions?), I imagine if someone had publicly stated they were a member of some unusual religion we would only include it if reliable sources covered it extensively. Otherwise we would probably just omit discussion of it entirely.
 * Race is not so much self-decided. Again we often take someone's word for it (after all, most people know more about their own race and heritage through personal family histories than reliable sources report upon). There have been cases where someone's self-identified race turns out to be inaccurate (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind). Dolezal has since acknowledged that she was "born white to white parents" but "identifies as black". I see the article currently says in Rachel Dolezal "Dolezal is a person of Northern and Central European ancestry; genealogical researches of her ancestry have found no non-European ancestry.[68] She identifies as African American." (no cite on that last bit, hmm...) Again I'm not sure I know of any cases in which a subject of a Wikipedia article has claimed that they identify with a race that is not commonly considered to be a race; again I imagine we would only mention it if there was significant coverage, and probably in similar terms as Dolezal with self-attribution ("Doe said in [year] that they identify as [race]").
 * To come back to the general case: I think would probably omit unusual identities unless there was wide coverage, in which case we would probably just mention the coverage. Pronouns are tough because it's quite hard to avoid using pronouns, and even when we avoid using them it's quite apparent that we're avoiding them. So with pronouns we have to decide between using a neopronoun, using a possibly wrong pronoun, or using no pronouns−we can't just omit it. Some have argued that "they" is a good option for when we're avoiding neopronouns, but as I mentioned at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale I disagree with that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense to me, thank you! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 22:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/2208216/vampire-identity-study-acceptance/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/real-life-vampires-exist-they-are-scared-admit-their-practices-doctors-180955877/ ... --GRuban (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't follow the discussions closely, but it seems that Lonsdale wants the word "tree" to be used as a pronoun by everyone, not just for himself:


 * "Lonsdale further explained: “I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’ I want people to call me ‘tree,’ because we all come from trees, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends 'tree' and me 'tree' and everyone 'tree.' So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I’m going to say ‘tree.’"

I see that we don't follow his wishes in his article, or any of the other biographies here. I get the feeling that his odd wish doesn't get much traction anywhere... -- Valjean (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you saying that I've done distruptive edit?
I've edited some parts on Epik that has no clues, but you're accusing me that I'm vandalising articles. Could you tell me what the problem was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.218.128.125 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're trying to do, but you removed enormous swaths of sourced content with no explanation, and I see you've just done the same at Rob Monster: . If that was unintended, please try to be a little more careful when you're editing. If it was intended, please seek consensus on each article's talk page for such a major change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Super straight? Super gone.
Hello Gorilla, as you're already likely aware, that misbegotten super straight article is kaput. I say: if the super straight meme ever becomes more reified, and some actual RS are available, let's you and I make a high-quality article about it. In the memetime, the memes go on without us. The fact is most memes don't have scholarly work done on them, and so are generally not Wikipedia-friendly.

Hope you're well. Joe (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps only the good memes do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * lel, global economy go krrrrrrrrrr :P Joe  (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a reasonable argument in the AfD to merge the content to Transphobia. I don't think the outcome prohibits reference to the topic there. BD2412  T 02:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also at /pol/ fwiw. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd say it's currently adequately covered at /pol/, but you could try to add a blurb to Transphobia if you wanted. Joe  (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one who suggested merging the content into transphobia. A small mention in the transphobia article would do. X-Editor (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)