User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 5

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Shewolff77
Hey gorilla, you said you were an administrator. What are you doing on an obscure webpage in the middle of the night? Not only that you are using a bot. You have no idea who i am. I don't know the rules here yet, but I was called to testify against billy boy gates in congress. Yep. the name is Dr. (a real one) Valerie B. Kaiser, MD and I own a privately owned and secured internet language that can cut butter. Bill wanted it for 300,000,000.00 to start the MSN network which would have put him in control of YOU. My partner and I said NO. She does what you do. I think. My undergrad degree was in physics with a 4.0. Guess what I have? GERSTMANN SYDROME. YOU are a fool working for people who are just trying to stop something they cannot. You know what that is, or maybe you do not. But I put all pretty pictures of all your sites, mr administrator, (did not say I could spell) on the pages of the real people who run this show. Bye bye KING KONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shewolff77 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am an administrator. I don't see why that makes my work on "an obscure webpage in the middle of the night" inappropriate, but feel free to explain that. And no, I'm not using a bot. I'm not exactly sure what makes you think that I am. If this were a bot account, you would see bot on my userpage, and you would see "bot" as one of my user rights. It's possible that you saw my contributions, which have a lot of similar-looking edit summaries. That is because I use Huggle, which is an automated program used to revert vandalism on Wikipedia. It differs from a bot, however, in that I review every edit I make with Huggle, whereas a bot would operate on its own. I'll also point out that I did not use Huggle to remove your text from Relative direction; that edit I made manually.


 * Now, as for the rest of your message, I'm not really sure what you're trying to tell me. However, I did see your edit to WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20091001/Interview2, where you seemed to be trying to file a complaint against me. I'm not sure why you keep arguing that your edit was cited, because it contained not a single citation. This is the edit you made to Relative direction. There is not a single citation there, so I removed it per our verifiability policy. You are more than welcome to add the text back to the article, if you fully cite it. I removed the complaint at the WikiProject page not because I don't want you filing a complaint against me, but simply because that is not the right place to do so. If you think that I have done something inappropriate, you are more than welcome to file a complaint at the appropriate place: If you think I have been impolite or uncivil, go to WP:Wikiquette alerts. If you think I am running more than one account at a time (perhaps this is what you mean when you accuse me of running a bot?), go to WP:Sockpuppet investigations. If you think I've violated Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, go to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. If you think I've been misusing my admin rights, etc., go to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I will not undo any edits you make to these places. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank's a lot!!!
Crlsmrgf (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my talk page!
I know precisely who the culprit is and am, to say the least, not at all concerned - but it's good to have the might of wiki volunteers looking out for me. Keep up the good work! Egg Centric 21:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! Huggle already warned him for me, so it should be all set. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he is a she... but aye ;) Egg Centric 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE barnstar

 * Thank you! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 13:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE
Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check in. My mentee hasn't edited since March 17... Is this unusual? – GorillaWarfare(Public) main account • talk 14:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but a few of them have recently (as far as I can tell about 1/4-1/2. My own mentees both edited on the 22nd, but I figured it was a good time to make sure everyone makes sure that the students are checking though, Sadads (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I left a note on his talk page. Thanks for checking in! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Constructed wetlands article
You changed the article on Constructed Wetlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_wetland) to remove contrary information that I provided that shows wetlands are not all good. That included, from memory, a link that showed this. This link (http://www.sccwrp.org/ResearchAreas/Wetlands/WetlandEcologyAndBiogeochemistry/UrbanWetlands/HabitatValueOfNaturalAndConstuctedWetlands.aspx)asks three questions: "1) Do natural or constructed wetlands used for treatment of urban runoff become environmental hazards for wildlife?

2) How does directing urban runoff or stormwater through a natural or constructed wetland affect the habitat quality of the wetland?

a) What is the potential that changes to a wetland’s physical or chemical structure will affect the ecological health of the wetland, in terms of its ability to support a diverse and healthy assemblage of typical wetland flora and fauna?

b) How do potential changes in wetland physical and chemical structure impact the biological communities dependent on these wetlands, and are these impacts severe enough to be of concern?

c) To what extent does the intentional manipulation of hydrologic regime, site morphology, and wetland biota (to maximize water treatment capacity) detract from the habitat value of the wetland?

3) How do considerations of the habitat effects of treatment wetlands differ by wetland class (e.g., how are the issues different for riverine vs. palustrine or lacustrine wetlands)?"

And states: "Adequate research does not exist to address the three central questions above." and "Documented examples exist showing potential incompatibility between water quality and habitat goals in wetlands. Overall, the literature reviewed suggests that concerns of risk to wildlife are valid, but because these studies were not specifically designed to address this question, the degree of risk is unknown."

These are valid points and people should be made aware of them.

By the way, my name is Alan Erskine and I can be contacted at alan.erskine1(at)bigpond.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.35.7 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit was made over five months ago, so it's been a little difficult for me to piece together my reasoning. However, I'm guessing that the reason I reverted is that there is a major difference between what you said: "Not all studies show that wetlands are effective, and some show that they are dangerous to wildlife" and what the article says: "Unfortunately, many studies have asserted that use of wetlands for these treatment purposes may potentially endanger wildlife." To say that wetlands endager wildlife is different from saying they have the potential to do so. You should feel free to re-add the information, but make sure you are more clear with your wording. Furthermore, it might be worth adding a bit about how the studies were not designed to address the question, etc. If you do re-add the information, please make sure to format your citation correctly. I have formatted it for you below, if you'd rather just copy and paste it after any information you add:
 * Cheers, and good luck with the article. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and good luck with the article. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Homophones
Hey, GW, I noticed in one of your recent edits to List of dams and reservoirs in Sri Lanka, it appeared confusion with Homophones to some users. Did you confuse homophones, or not clarify? Paocs (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. My only edit to that page was to move it from List of dams in Sri Lanka to List of dams and reservoirs in Sri Lanka, per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dams. If the issue is with the moving of pages from "List of dams in X" to "List of dams and reservoirs in X", you should bring it up at that page. If the issue is with another edit to that page, you should check the page history and find the person who made the edit. That page move contained no homophone issues that I can see, so I think you might be mistaken. If not, let me know. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Solarie talk
Hey, but why did u delated? I need this, can I get it back for some minutes? Can be in message — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnuSs (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it under criterion A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion: "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." The article was just a listing of tracks with no explanation of what the album was. I Googled it and found no mention of any album by that title. What is this album? I will userfy it for you if it has the potential to be encyclopedic. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Thank you for notifying me about those problems. I will be sure to avoid causing them again in the future. Again, thanks! I love roads 22:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you prefer it here
It sucks that you help keep the sexist slant on wikipedia. Can't believe you are really female. Thx for fucking up edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 05:20, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing edits claiming someone is a "loony conspiracy theorist" is not sexist, it's policy. Same goes for removing information that appears to be original research. If you want your content to remain on Wikipedia, you need to meet our policies on neutral point of view and reliable sources. I also strongly suggest you stop being uncivil, or you may be blocked. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 05:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with Aawjgnekr Vandal
Hello, GW, I'm here needing help with the Aawjgnekr Vandal. First of all, don't be surprised I'm choosing you to contact about this.

I have recently dealt with Aawjgnekr Junior and Freddyfreak1997, Who might be sock puppets of Aawjgnekr (verify). I've also previously dealt with Netgerr, TomBellBomb, and Sawjan (If these external links aren't working, please see me). One recreated the hoax page Controlisable, another Chase oliver(Difference between capitalization). You may also be wondering if Freddyfreaks 1998 and 99. They might be, but I think we should leave that matter for later. I just need help. Please contact me as soon as possible. AlfredoRego (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I've mentioned these two users at Sockpuppet investigations/Aawjgnekr, but it may be archived now. AlfredoRego (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged accordingly. They all seem to be obvious socks. Might I ask what interactions you've had with these users in the past? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
These users have not caused me much trouble, but I think I might have been vandalized by Freddyfreak1997. I have a question--- Why are you redirecting the Freddyfreaks' talk pages to their user pages? AlfredoRego (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't see any vandalism to your pages in xyr contributions. Redirecting the talk pages is pretty much just procedure with socks. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

33rd Regiment
Why did you delete my article, 33rd regiment of foot, i put 2 links up, and it wasnt discussed on the talk page of the article.
 * I've responded on your talk page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Archived Talk Page
Hello again, GW, I noticed on your archives, you wrote your own template. There is Archived Talk Page, a template exactly like the one on your archives. Archived Talk Page AlfredoRego (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The template that I'm using is . I've just substituted it. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I'm using . seems to be a duplicate of that page. Do you know why it is almost exactly duplicated there? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Got your message. How exactly do you site what is stated on the airwaves? A link is cited for the cast member in front of his name. The comment made can easily be verified by clicking on the link to view the picture. --Psychoscientist (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake. I've replied on your talk page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 06:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

218.186.18.252
I've noticed that you were hunting down this user's changes on articles. It really seems this user is doing it for fun, for the most part.

I have taken interest in his activity as well, so I too will pay attention to his edits. I just love the feeling of reverting a vandal, and then watching them post the same garbage again. HAHAHA.

BTW, love the name.

SelfEx1led (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "hunting down" is the right word; I was using an automated vandalism reversion program called Huggle. I'm glad you enjoy vandalism patrol. You might find the warning templates to be a useful and standardized way of warning vandals after you revert an edit. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I'm simply patrolling manually. But I noticed that you were on top of his edits (as a result of the program). Funny stuff.

Though I could warn the vandal, I don't want to be someone who's "bossy", which is why I've never used the templates. For someone like me who isn't an admin of some sort, threatening him to get him blocked seems kind of like an empty promise. *Shrugs*

SelfEx1led (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's generally more helpful to other vandal patrollers if you do use the warning templates. It's also not an empty promise. If a user has received a final warning and vandalizes again anyway, you should report xyr at administrator intervention against vandalism. The steps for vandal patrol are well-described at Counter-Vandalism Unit, if you're interested. You might find it helpful. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think with your explanation it might convince me to use the templates. The other patrollers might get a better reason to get that user blocked (because it seems to require a lot of patience for other admins to take action on a user - something Wikipedia is very good with).

How fast does Huggle work on new edits? How does it work? I like the feeling of manually patrolling - because it gives me a physical feel that I'm "hunting".

SelfEx1led (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huggle basically takes an IRC feed of Special:RecentChanges and allows you to filter them by a number of criteria. For example, you can look just at the new page creations. Huggle marks edits that are more suspicious, I guess you could say. For example, if a user was just reverted and warned for vandalism, another edit by that user is flagged. Similarly, it marks edits that blank pages, remove large amounts of content, redirect pages, etc. It's not fully automated, though. You click a button to look at the edit, and if it's vandalism, there's a button that automatically reverts and warns the user with the appropriate template. If Huggle sees that the user has a final warning, it will either open a window to let you block the user (if you have the admin userright) or a window to allow you to report the user. You can also tag pages for speedy deletion, etc. There's more information at Huggle/Manual. As for how quickly it works, it's more or less immediate. It only depends on how long the patroller takes to revert the edit. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the info! Based on what you wrote, I have zero reason to do this manually. The fact that you can report a user that quickly is a huge bonus. Finding mods to report to manually is a pain.

I'll definitely try it out. Thanks.

SelfEx1led (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in order to use Huggle, you have to have the rollback userright. You should try using Twinkle first, a different automated vandalism tool, and then when you feel ready you can request rollback. Twinkle doesn't find vandal edits for you, but you can use something like Lupin's anti-vandal tool to start out. Also, you don't have to use Huggle to file a report at AIV. That can be done manually or with Huggle. For that matter, pretty much everything Huggle does can be done manually. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems very complicated, but I will check it out. I don't understand what the difference is between Twinkle and Huggle, since Twinkle seems to have rollback features built-in apparently (unless I'm severely mistakened). Since you seem to know a lot about the two, could you please explain?

Thanks!

SelfEx1led (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They're quite different. First off, Huggle is a program that you download and install on your computer. Twinkle is all Javascript; you don't download it, it just adds a set of buttons and functions right on Wikipedia. If you add it, you'll see a dropdown tab that says "TW" right up where the "Read", "Edit", "History", etc. tabs are. Huggle also essentially finds vandalism for you. You open it up, and you can start cycling through diffs of edits. Twinkle is most helpful when you've already found the vandalism. This is why I suggested Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool to help you do the finding, since Twinkle doesn't do that.


 * As for the rollback, this confuses a lot of people. The rollback userright is a right that's enabled on your account (similar to how "reviewer" or "administrator" is a userright). It has to be added by an administrator. Twinkle does not require a user to have this userright. Instead, Twinkle uses a different type of rollback (also explained at Rollback). It works very similarly. It's extremely useful to use before you do get the rollback right. If you're still confused about Twinkle, there's a lot of information available at Twinkle/doc. You can also continue to ask me questions; I used Twinkle for quite a while before I had rollback, and I still use it pretty frequently these days too. It has other functions in addition to warning vandals that I also find very useful. For example, it makes things like creating AfD discussions, creating sockpuppetry cases, page protection, and cleanup tagging a breeze. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 13:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cookies
Moved so that it's not embedded under another heading, also fixed formatting.
 * Thank you! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Template clean up
Hi GW. I noticed that you just blocked Hiuby. He created a number of templates that appear as though they should be in his userspace. Would it be reasonable for them to be moved? Cheers. Meph talk 01:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. I see Materialscientist has already begun doing so. (Disregard that). Materialscientist is moving them to, etc., per Userboxes. That's probably a better solution, because they could possibly be used by others. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd considered moving them there, but decided to check with someone who's holding a mop. Thanks. Meph talk 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking care of that user. I honestly have no idea how I wound up in a year-long battle over an article I really don't care about at all. Keepscases (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

resumed vandalism after block exipired
User talk:Beebeeking15 has resumed vandalism after your block expired. Thanks.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave xyr a final warning. We'll see what happens from there. Thanks for letting me know! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing an article creation ban proposal
Hello. We could really use a fast track on this matter. As you can see from this user's talk, he intends on making even more stubs against consensus. We are going mad cleaning up. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fram got it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

? about inclusion of a video
Hi, wondering if you would advise re including a video * on the Satellite Sentinel Project page to help explain what it is about. Would it be allowable? Thank you. --Jespah (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, it looks like it could be useful. I think it would be appropriate to add it to the external links section. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did add it as a link.  I mean actually upload the video, assuming I can

get permission. Thanks! --Jespah (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should leave it as an external link. The video is copyrighted by that company. Furthermore, because the man speaking is sort of "selling" the project, it's not very NPOV. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you. --Jespah (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:117.206.243.27
Hi, kindly block this fellow. This guy is injecting his POV and making a nuisance of himself at Mohammed Rafi. Please see this. Joyson Noel Holla at me!  10:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've warned both you and xyr for violating the 3 revert rule. In the future, you should report things like these either to the edit warring noticeboard or the content noticeboard. As you can see, a specific user may not always be online, so it's generally preferable to use the noticeboard. I apologize if you thought I was online because of my status indicator–I completely forgot to change it when I signed off. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you send me a warning? That was wholly unnecessary. I am abiding by the rules. This person is engaging in vandalism. I am not edit warring with him. You should look into the matter before taking any action. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  15:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever is done is done. Please revert his edits and we will take it up at the talk page. He is supposed to discuss, before making any controversial moves, such as changing Bombay to Mumbai, and adding a Marathi language transliteration to a non-Marathi person. I'm sorry to have bothered you. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring with him. 3rr reads, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." What that editor was adding was not vandalism, it's a content dispute. You also can bring it up on the talk page if you disagree with his addition. He's not the only one who can start a discussion about it. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does constitute vandalism, in the context that you yourself sent him a warning not to inject POV info earlier. This fellow is persistently doing so, irregardless of what the fact is. He states that since the subject is from a particular state, he belongs to it's majority ethnic group. As such, his name should be transliterated in the particular dominant language, even though it is not the native tongue of the person. This violates Naming conventions (use English) and is as ridiculous as adding a name transliteration into Hawaiian language for Obama, just because he was born in Honolulu. That fellow is a chauvinist and is dishonestly conflating the label "Maharashtrian" which denotes belonging to Maharashtra state, with that of the majority ethnic group residing in it (The Marathi people). The subject is known to be a Punjabi. Hence, his native script should be allowed. Please revert it. If i do so in a few days, he will start edit warring again. I shall bring it up on the talk page after you have done so. Thanks.  Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  17:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, he has already violated 3RR, which is another reason why i asked you to block him in the first place. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the edits are vandalism. If you read WP:NOTVAND:
 * Disruptive editing or stubbornness
 * Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing
 * Also, calling the editor a chauvinist and dishonest is incivil and should be avoided. As for him violating 3RR, he is not the only one who has done so here. Like I said, you should bring the issue to one of the noticeboards. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't violated 3RR, which is why i am not blocked, Right? I only reverted the edit three times. I refrained from doing so after my three times were over.
 * Calling someone "dishonest" is not incivil, when it is directed at the conduct. You do have a point with the term "Chauvinist" though. So, i accept my fault here.
 * If you even cared to read the history page carefully, which i doubt, then you will clearly notice that his edits are POV oriented. Had it been his first or second time, i would have assumed good faith. But he has persistently violated a rule (Naming conventions (use English) and resorted to accusations, which is why i eventually reverted it as vandalism.
 * Lastly being a long time editor, i am aware of WP:ANI. I only contacted you because you sent him a warning earlier for inserting POV info into the article. As such, i thought you would care and take swift action. But you don't seem to care. As such, i shall not bother you again. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You reverted four times, actually. However, I warned both of you and blocked neither of you because the edit war is over. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and since the edit war is over for the time being, I don't believe a block is necessary for either of you. As for my unwillingness to get involved, I'm not familiar with the subject matter in the least, and don't trust that I could make a good decision either way. Furthermore, it makes me uncomfortable to get involved in an issue that you haven't even tried to resolve with the editor. There is no post on the talk page and no message from you on his user talk page other than a NPOV template. That is the appropriate avenue to take before seeking out blocks on the editor, and before taking the issue to any noticeboard. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 21:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You misunderstood. The only exception to the 3RR rule is if i am reverting Vandalism. Hence, i discounted the fourth edit. It doesn't make sense to assume good faith for a biased user who makes an edit on a demonstrably false reason (The subject is a Marathi, because he resided for the most part in a Marathi majority state, that too with no evidence to back his purported ethnicity). You wouldn't for a second assume good faith if i were to edit Obama's article and add a name transliteration into the Hawaiian language, on the false reason that "he hails from Hawaii and that supposedly makes him an ethnic Hawaiian." It is as absurd! I am under no obligation to assume Good Faith towards that person, and discuss this on the talk page. Anyway since nothing is going to be done, let's not break our heads further discussing this minor issue. I'll leave the article alone. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Help
Thanks for your help. (Obrigado pela ajuda) Stay well. (Fique bem)

GustoBLSJP (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

MusclesGlasses
I've replied to your request for a source. The situation is a little ambiguous and I'm not a regular wiki editor, so I'll leave it up to you to decide how the name should be displayed. 216.165.20.98 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

CSD request declined
Thanks for the heads up on my talk page, though this seemed to be a copy & paste from http://www.kentsystems.com/index.php?file=c-static&pagename=patents.php, which is why I added the CSD tag. Wildthing61476 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The patent section appeared to infringe, but the rest of the text seemed fine. G12 only applies "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." I removed the patents section, which didn't add a whole lot to the page anyway, and the article is clean now. Also, and I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing, as I know you're not a new user, but you might want to review the criteria for speedy deletion. I noticed when I was posting on your talk page that you have six declined speedy messages in the past few months. It might be worth a review of the criteria, and when in doubt, a PROD or AfD nomination is often a safer bet. Cheers! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Erik Brunetti
Hi, not too sure how this whole wiki things works, but I saw that you actually left a positive comment in the talk page for the Erik Brunetti article. The text & photos that were deemed copyright are all from the artist at the source. It's frustrating to not be able to add that text as is or even the photos... Can you help with that? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.17.15 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply removed the speedy deletion template, as the text was no longer a violation. As for adding copyrighted text or photos, you should read WP:Donating copyrighted material. However, I should point out that it sounds like you have a conflict of interest, and editing pages with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Roma Downey Wikipedia Entry
GorillaWarfare,

My name is Howie, I am the Technical Consultant for Mrs. Roma Downey-Brunett. She is engaging in a new project in partnership with Mark Burnett and we would like to propose some minor modifications to her Wiki entry titled "Roma Downey"

Please let me know if you would willing to engage in a conversation regarding this matter. I am capable of providing facts and evidence to support my relationship with Mrs. Downey-Burnett.

In particular, we would like you to redact the content regarding prior marriages and personal relationships.

We have updated biography, career and pictures we would like to post as well.

Thank You, Howie — Preceding unsigned comment added by NantucketSound (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be willing to help with the changes you're hoping to make. First, though, I should point out that we have a conflict of interest guideline that strongly discourages editing pages with which you have a conflict of interest. I would suggest you avoid directly editing the page, but rather suggest the changes that you think should be made on the talk page. I can keep an eye on the talk page to try to help implement the changes you suggest. Essentially, we'd just be moving this conversation to the talk page of the article.


 * Secondly, any information that you'd like to add should be supported by reliable sources. You are obviously close to the subject, and therefore surely know much more about her than is published, but you should avoid trying to add information that cannot be supported. This is considered original research, and is against policy.


 * Regarding the redaction of content, why would you like to redact it? Is it factually inaccurate? If not, it should remain, as it helps contribute to a more complete biography. Anyway, I would suggest that you respond to this message at Talk:Roma Downey. Alternatively, if you're available and you see that the status indicator on my user page shows that I'm online, a more quick way of discussing this would be to join . Just type "GorillaWarfare" and it will ping me. Cheers! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A guiding star!

 * Thank you! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for restoring my talk page. User:70.52.212.244 is a problematic editor whose contributions have been unsourced conspiracy theories and other fanciful things. I've yet to see a productive edit from him, which means that sooner or later he'll be indef blocked (the IP is stable). Blanking another user's talk page isn't going to help him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, probably not indef blocked. Regardless of how stable the IP address is, it can still be reassigned or used by others. It could be long-term blocked though; feel free to give a higher level warning if he vandalizes again. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, IPs are seldom blocked indef. I'm keeping an eye on his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Retirement notice
A user that you might know, Crazymonkey1123, has opened a discussion on his talk page regarding his possibility of retiring from Wikipedia. You are welcome to go and participate in the discussion. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Philippine–American War article
I see that you have edited the Timeline of Philippine–American War article in the not too distant past. I have recently started on a rewrite of that article, and am soliciting input and participation from interested editors. If interested, please see Talk:Timeline of Philippine–American War for more info. Please comment there as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Aucoin
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber Protection
You know how obvious it is for Justin Bieber(protection log) to get vandalized a lot? The semi-protection was not working. And I am SO GLAD the level of protection was changed to where it can only be edited by admins!!!!! It got vandalized at least three times every day!

OK, I'm requesting you move protect the article so nobody can duplicate it and trash it. I'm curious, haven't you dealt with a lot of vandalism to that article?. BewarePETeacher (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is already move protected. I'm curious why you decided to ask me, though... To my knowledge I've never edited that page, except just now to make the protection lock template a small topicon. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of 89.242.247.32
Hi GorillaWarfare. I'm approaching you since you were the one that blocked 89.242.247.32 for 3RR (although I think the block could have been for personal attack just as well, or frankly, for vandalism). First, note that it is the same account as FASHIONKING17, they both have exactly the same edits for Bros and Shutter Shades. But more importantly, that IP is avoiding the block by using 89.242.242.245, again, the same two edits here and here. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And now also as 82.132.138.158 --Muhandes (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. FASHIONKING17 is already indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, but I have blocked the IPs and extended the block on the initial one for one week. I've also noticed that both Bros and Shutter Shades have been semi-protected for a week. I hope this solves the problem. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. --Muhandes (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL
Nice shot. :-)
 * Oh, hush :P So much for a clean block log... – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least it looks better than mine... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

re: BillBlakeSPFX
You might want to take a look at this and this, which I found through a quick Google search... oh my... He was essentially a glorified fan and an extra. Definitely not seeing any real notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am mostly giving him the benefit of the doubt in an effort to not damage his ego. Also, please tell me you're in communication with the HTML5 guys about getting and included... :D – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't I wish! on the Takei thing... I've always liked the fake html jokes - been using that one for years... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranowear
Thank you for your valuable help and information. I would of course be more than willing to revise the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nicoleseowhat/Ranowear to fit your guidelines. I do have one question. We hired an outside service simply because we are unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures and our learning curve might slow things down. Would it still be possible to hire another writer as an editor with specific instructions to adopt a neutral point of view and follow the guidelines as outlined in your note specifically as regards to sourcing and inclusion of any relevant negative information? And of course I would like the article to be userfied again. However, as you mentioned a time factor once it is userfied, should we wait on that until we're ready to do proper edits? Thanks. Willisfd (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)willisfdWillisfd (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx
I try not to commit sockpuppetry, but, sometimes, it gets out, I am Sorry for any disruptive behaiour I have done.

Thanx for warning me,

Macedoniarulez (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

requests for pages?
Hi, great to see you! !s it posse!ble 2 request admins to create articles or talk pages?

User Talk:Boberson33| Bobmaista Guy ]]
 * I suppose you could ask, yes, but why would you need to? Also, have you decided about the request for adminship? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well yea, but as you said, i should wait until i have experience, thanks!! User Talk:Boberson33| Bobmaista Guy ]] ා₭
 * Would you like me to delete the page? And also, what's going on that makes you want an admin to create the pages for you? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care if you did, and i am not an admin so it's harder to create approved pages without them being deleted and the beginners guide and stuff are like 10 paragraphs long, and i had some good ideas for pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boberson33 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Page creation, and whether or not a page is kept, has very little to do with who creates it. If I put an article on Wikipedia that's not worthy of inclusion, it will be deleted just the same as if you did. Read Starting an article and Your first article... It should help you figure out how to write an article that will be kept. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 06:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

uggg, Dude Thats too long User Talk:Boberson33| Im Friggin serious ]] ා₭  —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, I'm happy to help you if you have any specific questions about inclusion criteria, etc. However, I would strongly suggest at least skimming through those guides. They are long, but in the long run it will be much less frustrating to read those than to get your pages repeatedly removed. Furthermore, a record of creating bad pages can be viewed as disruptive editing, and even possibly result in a block. What were some of your ideas for pages? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing is i cant think of any right now but i will check out that guide thing Never Ever at sometime. But you might disagree on this, (in my opinion) even when i follow the rules sometimes they still delete pages and when on the talk page one time when i wanted to change something they said i needed to override it User Talk:Boberson33| Dis is my signaturz  ]] ා₭   <span style="font-size: smaller;" Whatever Time it is,  18 June, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any particular example of a page you created that was deleted even though it fit inclusion criteria, please let me know and I'll be happy to take a look. As for saying you "needed to override it", I'm not sure exactly what you mean... Override what?


 * One more thing... It appears that instead of signing your posts by typing ~ after them, you're copying and pasting a signature you have created. Please stop doing this. You can customize your signature by going to "My preferences" and putting your markup in the signature field. Then, by adding ~ after the post, your post will automatically include your signature and a timestamp. This is much preferable to a copy-pasted signature and "Whatever Time it is", which is really just quite confusing. I should also point out that you should not be using tags in your signature. This disrupts the surrounding text, and is disallowed in the signature policy. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 03:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, Tis not letting me Change thy signature User Talk:Boberson33| Bobmaista Guy ]]
 * There is no reason you shouldn't be able to change your signature. Also, you should note that there appear to be missing tags in your signatures that you keep pasting (extra  tags, etc. Also, why did you post that image here? I've removed it, as it was so large that it was disrupting the page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deism
Hi, this is Awawawawoo, and I just recently altered the Deism page, but the change I made keeps getting undone by another user called PTJoshua. He stated that my edit was "vandalism". I was wondering about how he defines vandalism, as I stated my reason for removing the quote- namely, its debated, controversial nature. I haven't used wikipedia much (other than as an information source), but I was prompted by a friend to look up Deism, and when I saw something that struck me as odd and went into the article's discussion about it, found there was already a debate taking place and that even people in the wikipedia community found the statement which caught my eye to be more pinion than fact. So...why is my edit being repeatedly undone? I feel it is entirely legitimate, and lends more credence to the article as a whole. I'm not too good at editing on here, but here's the user who altered what I removed, who I see you've spoken with on here before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PTJoshua&action=edit&redlink=1 Here's the page I edited. I removed the quote at the end of the second full paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism And here is the discussion of that single sentence, which I deemed too opinionated to appear in the introduction of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deism I contributed in the discussion about the founders at the very end of the section titled "Deism in the U.S." My biggest question is, why isn't there a separate section discussing this quote about the founding fathers, possibly titled "Deism in the U.S." instead of a statement, made as though it is fact, appearing at the top of the entire article discussing Deism itself? Inappropriate, IMO, and I don't understand why my edit keeps getting defined here by another user as "vandalism". Thanks for reading. :) Awawawawoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awawawawoo (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That isn't true. You removed something that was referenced and the talk page thing isn't true either. You simply stated "This subject is clearly opinionated, and has historians on both side of the debate" even though the comment right above yours said "Quite a number of books have been written that attack the idea that many of them were Deists (I even found one at Costco the other day, some kind of "why everything you think you know about America is liberal lies" kind of Republican rant book), but I have yet to find one that has any solid research behind it" so nobody was saying there are lots on either side they were saying the opposite. PTJoshua (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What I said is true. The comment above that one said this: "A few points of clarification. I think that, here at wikipedia, our personal assessment of a particular source often needs to be held in check. Your assessment of Frazer's interpretation of Jefferson's statement is different from mine. It seems to me that Jefferson's words clearly indicate a general belief in God's involvement in human affairs. Frazer's work has an entire chapter, not a "vague sentence" on Jefferson's religious views. For the article, lengthy discussion is not appropriate, so I presented Frazer's strongest single piece of evidence, which is usually ignored by the "Jefferson-was-a-Deist" camp. Secondly, I was not disputing Enlightenment influence on the American founders, but rather the threefold connection of Deism, Enlightenment, and the American founding. I have read May's book, as well as many other books relating to Enlightenment philosophy, American colonial education, and the lives and thinking of the founders, including lesser-known founders like Witherspoon, Wythe, and Wilson. The Americans were much more likely to read theists like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, for example, than Voltaire or Rousseau. There were cross-currents in the Enlightenment, so the vague, unsourced statement linking Deism, the Enlightenment, and the American founders seems to be not only against wikipedia policy, but also misleading and unhelpful. --Other Choices"

This user seems much better informed over all. And there are several comments above that one, and the one you quoted I found to be the least informative and the most opinionated. Phrases like "Republican rant book" and claiming, without referencing anything in specific, that said book(s) isn't properly research, or however they put it, is perfectly meaningless. All they gave was a political opinion, when you boil down the substance. And this statement: "several of the founding fathers were Deists" is also opinion, based on the fact that there are history books that contradict each other on the subject. And if you read all the comments back and forth on the page you referenced, you'll see that there is a discussion taking place. That's what prompted the comment you quoted in the first place, after all. So I'm not sure how what I wrote earlier is untrue.


 * What you quote was talking about an unpublished work and he plainly says "It seems to me that Jefferson's words clearly indicate..." which is obviously an opinion. You just like it because it is your opinion too. PTJoshua (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not read Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, and am having trouble finding the appropriate passage from the book in Google Books. As such, I do not know if the source supports the statement. Obviously, if the source does not support it, then it should be removed. However, I'm also not the right person to bring into this discussion—I not only am unfamiliar with the book in question, I also little knowledge about the subject in general. What I can tell you is that, Awawawawoo, you are about to violate the 3 revert rule if you revert once more. Please don't resort to edit warring, but continue to discuss it between yourselves and other involved users so that you can come to an agreement. If you are unable to agree after more discussion, feel free to start a section at WP:NORN. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for replying! :) I didn't know about the 3 revert rule, thanks for letting me know.  That's partly why I posted here, to find out about the rules.  I guess I'll continue discussing this with PTJoshua, then.  I think he's checking up here, so I'll just put up a book I googled pretty fast, titled "Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America" by by Steven Waldman.  I particularly liked a quote from one of the editorial reviews of the book: “Steven Waldman does a great job describing the nuances of the Founders’ beliefs and the balances they struck, thus rescuing them from those on both sides who would oversimplify their ideas.” –Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute and author of Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. Anywho, when I googled "Founding fathers deism amazon" (or it may have been "founding fathers deist amazon") many different books came up which argued both sides of the "most of the founders are deists" argument. All I've said is that the statement that it is widely accepted that most of the founders are deists is highly debated, and thus not appropriate in the introductory paragraphs of a wikipedia article on Deism. Thanks! Woops, here's the book link: http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-Politics-Religious/dp/1400064376/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308784968&sr=1-3
 * It's good that you're willing to discuss this, but I would suggest you take this discussion to Talk:Deism. That way, both PTJoshua and other interested editors will be able to weigh in. Also, when posting on talk pages, you should sign your posts by leaving ~ after your message. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which user?
Could you please tell me which user, and in which case? I've done so many lately. Thanks. Lighthead (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You slapped User:74.102.105.218 with a 4-im for changing a date, after having no prior edits. Not only is that BITE-Y, that one edit is not enough to warrant a block. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I can see how that was out of line. To put it simply someone insinuated I do that, and I've been doing that ever since. But I will stop doing that and go with my gut. That person told me to notify people and I saw him put a 4-im on an IP user's talk page. I thought it was out of line, but I just started doing what he was doing. I went against my instinct, like I said, and started doing that. But I will do what you said. Thanks for the tip. And like I said, I'm sorry. Lighthead (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4-ims can be appropriate for a first edit in cases of grossly offensive edits, etc. However, for this, a level 1 or 2 would suffice. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Should I go back and replace my recent warnings? Lighthead (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with a strikethrough and a non-template note. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I think there were only 2; I already took care of them. I just deleted the first note and put the 1-im if that's alright. Let me know. Lighthead (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed this with your AIV reports. In general it's important to go through all the warnings before you put down the final warning, and to only use vandalism warnings and AIV reports for obvious vandalism. In some cases you reported editors who were just confused newbies making content edits you disagreed with. We're really glad you want to help, but the best way to help is to use vandalism warnings within their narrow scope. --causa sui (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanna disagree because in the case of User:186.136.36.159 for example, this person was putting non-notable artists to the article Electro house. You might want to review that. I don't know what you're specifically referring to because the other thing to note is that I haven't reported a lot of people since yesterday. I found only 2. Lighthead (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm sorry! I meant User:74.111.231.223. Lighthead (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of those warranted a 4-im. You should check out WP:4IM. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No not 4-im. A 1-im. Lighthead (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting all confused. The point is that I'll look carefully at what I'll do. As far as AIV reports, you might want to really go through them. None of them were based on opinion. Lighthead (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I check all the AIV reports I see. I won't discount any just because they are from you, if that's what you're concerned about. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pixilated Theory
I hope I put this in the right spot. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient with me. I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page "Pixilated Theory" and via the Wikipedia rules, I'm contacting you before requesting undeletion. I wish to contest the speedy deletion of this article as this group is quite well known in the Midwest and the article was not given a fair review in the article discussion section. I joined for the mere creation of this article (and possibly others in the future I hope, but if you treat everybody's contributions like this, I probably will not contribute) as I have been waiting years for some else to do it, as I know several people who will attest that this group is what Wikipedia considers to be of "Notable" status. I would like to know why the information I provide as sources (which met the guidelines of Wikipedia, which I mentioned on the talk page and was ignored) for notability were ignored.

Dan o d 1988 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Daniel O' Donnell


 * Oops, sorry! Please put your posts at the bottom of a talk page, or else people like me are liable to miss them. As for the article... I'm sure people can attest to the notability of this band, but what's important is finding significant coverage in reliable sources to show that the band meets the requirements at WP:BAND. The article you wrote had three sources: a set of videos of a music competition, and two articles from a blog. The videos show that the band exists and that it was on a music show, but very little else. The blog sources are not reliable; anyone can start a blog and write about something.


 * The only thing that gave me a second of pause as to the band's notability was the "Has won or placed in a major music competition." However, the Make a Star competition does not appear to be a major music competition. It doesn't appear to have its own Wikipedia article or even a mention in FUSE TV. I'm having trouble even finding a mention of the show on the Fuse website.


 * Anyway, until you provide reliable sources to show that the band meets the guidelines, I am unwilling to undelete. I did not ignore the sources, as you are accusing, and you provided no additional sources on the talk page to back up your claims. Feel free to take this to deletion review (and please do leave a note on my talk page if you do), but you know where I stand on the issue. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-sockpupetery?
I don't understand how user GorillaWarfarePublic is not a sockpuppet of your account.BewarePETeacher (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You caught me! Nah, just kidding. Sockpuppetry is defined as "the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards". I have, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that GorillaWarfarePublic is an alternative account of mine. The username is so similar that most people would connect it anyway, the userpage directly says that it's an alternative account, and the talk page redirects to mine. There is no deception here about who runs that account. If you look at WP:SOCK, it lists legitimate reasons for having alternative accounts. The first reason is "security", which is what my public account is for. My main account is not only important to me, but it has administrator rights. If someone was able to steal my password via a keylogger or trojan on a public computer, serious damage could be done to the project with even just one edit.


 * By using a public account, I can still edit/respond to messages/etc. on public computers. However, GorillaWarfarePublic is confirmed and IP block exempt; that's it. If someone were to gain access, there is little they could do. I keep an eye on the account, so if someone were to start editing from it, I could just block it and be done. The worst they could do would be to try to impersonate me—something that can be quickly rectified. Furthermore, because people know it's an account used on public computers, a sudden change in editing behavior would have a pretty obvious cause. Hope that explains everything thoroughly. Let me know if you have more questions. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're exploring new ways to explain why Wikipedia is so special and we’ve started a Wikipedia Stories Project, where we’re chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

Thus far, Wikipedia has largely relied upon personal appeals from founder Jimmy Wales to drive our annual fundraising efforts. While effective, these appeals don't convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me by email, phone, Skype, Facebook or whatever way you like. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project and we'll set up a good time to discuss further.

Thank you,

Victor

-- Victor Grigas Storyteller Wikimedia Foundation vgrigas@wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773 149 New Montgomery Street 3rd floor San Francisco, CA 94105


 * I have responded to your email. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

retired
A user you know, Crazymonkey1123, has retired. You may discuss this on his talk page. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Account
Hello GorillaWarfare. You have an alternative account, GorillaWarfarePublic. You're also an administrator.

Do you have to be an admin to have an alternative account? I need to know, because I could use one. Atterion (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's no requirement. See WP:SOCK for uses for alternative accounts. Just make sure you notify others of the account. If the account is for use on public computers, it's generally best to name the account something similar to your main username (i.e. "AtterionPublic", "AtterionAlt", etc.). Then state on the user page that the account is an alternative account, redirect the talk page, and include a link in the signature. If you're creating the account for other reasons and do not want to publicly state that you are operating the account, you should probably notify an oversighter or ArbCom member so that someone knows who is editing the account. This way, if the account draws scrutiny for controversial edits, you will avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, I have a new alternative account, AtterionAlternative, I will use on public computers. I've also left a notice on my user page, but I still have an idea that since I'm not an admin, users might think it is sockpuppetry.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks fine. Many non-admin users have alternative accounts for that purpose. It is hardly unusual, and if the account is not used disruptively, there will be no issues. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

THANKS
Thanks for the resources and for the great session in Boston! I really enjoyed meeting you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.102.170 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Open Workshop on Advanced Wikipedia Editing
I made a start on the message to send to the attendees; User:Chzz/gw  Chzz  ► 22:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I expanded upon what you had and spammed it out to the list of users. I'm sure if you want to make any changes, though, you should have plenty of time. A lot of those users may not necessarily check their talk page for a while. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

hi!
Hi - I met you at the summit this weekend, and am just leaving comments on talk for everyone I met for future communication. Kevin (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! :] – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi -- it was great to meet you, and I'm very glad I was able to introduce my daughter to you. (She was impressed.) If you're curious, the list of twenty words that are very difficult to spell can be found here; if you'd like to test yourself, of course, you'll need to get someone to read them out to you, so don't click on the link! As I recall these were published in Omni in about 1979, and the rubric said 8 or more correct was what was expected from someone with a degree in English; an English professor would be expected to get 16-20. Average adult American score was 0-2, I believe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I somehow managed to impress your daughter, haha! If she decides to edit, feel free to send her my way. Then again, with an experienced Wikipedian like you in residence, she probably wouldn't need much from me! Thank you for the link to the spelling words! I haven't clicked the link yet, because I plan on having somebody test me on them. I'll let you know how I do, heh!


 * It was great meeting you at the Summit, and I really hope I see you around (Wikimania 2012, perhaps?) – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to meet you as well, GW. Good luck with all future endeavors and don't beat yourself up about "not being a content contributor". Protonk (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you as well, Prontonk! FWIW, I don't beat myself up about it; Ed handles the beatings for me. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You got that right. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Musicals
Hi. I see you've done some editing on the Spider-Man musical. If you like musicals, please consider joining the WP:MUSICALS project. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

After the war a medal and maybe a job
Hi, when temporarily uploading images here from Commons for use on the main page, such as File:After the war a medal and maybe a job2.jpg today, is it usual to upload a reduced-size version? The version on Commons is 5,042 × 3,355 pixels, but the version temporarily uploaded here is only 800 × 532 pixels. It seems like that would reduce main page visitors' ability to enjoy the image in its full glory, though of course it makes the loading time for the main page faster. I guess I just wanted to confirm that the lower-res version was uploaded on purpose, not by accident. Angr (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of uploading the larger version from the Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...that is, as soon as the edit goes through. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was a mistake on my part. Thank you, Ed, for fixing it! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare/Deleted
Is User:GorillaWarfare/Deleted a subpage of yours, or is there a user by that name? It appears to be talking to a user by that name.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like a template she intends to use to notify people whose articles she speedies. I guess this makes me a talkpage stalker. Kevin (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kevin's right. It's a template I use for notifying people when I speedy delete their articles. I don't believe it's possible to create user accounts with slashes in them for this very reason. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of since. I should have payed attention! I also checked the history, and noticed you'd edited it, but I didn't understand it.

 Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello there
Hello GorillaWarfare, It was nice to meet you in Boston, and I must say I'm impressed with what you've accomplished in a relatively short time. I also find the disguise you've mentioned on other talk pages to be impressive and convincing. I look forward to working with you and so many others I met in Boston to help expand Wikipedia in Higher Education. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed meeting you as well! I hope the trip home went well. I hope to see you around, both on-wiki and off, and I'm glad to see my disguise is intact... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to know about the frightening experience we had coming home, take a look at "Mrs. Cullen" on the Drmies talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, that's terrifying! I hope you were buckled in and all! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone was buckled in except the Chinese woman who banged her head, and another woman who rode it out in the restroom. My eyeglasses were in my shirt pocket, but the jolt was so intense that they flew out of my pocket and landed between my wife and I.  The woman sitting next to my wife had her shoes off and one of her shoes flew to some unknown spot.  My wife saw a laptop levitate, but my eyes were drawn to books flying through the air. Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's unbelievable! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And some guy coming from Georgia Southern university had the flaps fail on his flight into boston. They ended up circling logan for an hour or so to burn fuel and landed hot.  Next wikipedia conference I'm taking the train. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez, must have been a long hour... Then again, I just read in the paper this morning that a truck crashed into the same train that I took the day after I was on it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * O_O Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: We pay to bring you there, but you might not actually arrive in one piece. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos on Commons
Hello GW, The Signpost has a nice writeup about our clambake in Boston. There is a link to a series of photos on Commons, including 3 of you. Wish I had the time for the Advanced Editing session, but I haven't yet figured out how to be in two places at once. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Gorilla, did you see I was having a fat day when they took those pictures? Please spread the word that I'm actually stunningly handsome, please. And thin. But not in need of "natural help"! (website below) At all! Drmies (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw with my own eyes. Kind of like Rock Hudson at his prime, or maybe a rock star, or perhaps us "middle aged" guys have rocks in our heads. Anyway, rocks are involved somehow. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say, attending the Summit has made my talk page exponentially more comical. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Penis enlargement
Hey, that happened to be a very useful link. What's the matter with you, Gorilla--feeling inadequate? Jealous? Lots of people might benefit from that site, and you're denying them thick, huge c***s. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * <3 – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me spit out my water, Drmies. Now I have to clean it up. Side note: nice navbar, Gorilla. It looks familiar. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Ed, yours was looking awfully similar to mine for a bit there... Oh, wait. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope Ed's doesn't look like mine. Wait--what is this navbar we're talking about? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine's bigger. Oh, and about the navbar, scroll to the top of the page for the user/talk/contribs/email/sandbox/OA links. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ninja Kiwi
I accidentally created a page called Ninja Kiwi, which I tagged for deletion as patent nonsense. I was meaning to redirect it to Bloons TD, because they are who made the game, but when I went to use the restroom, my brother got on the computer and secretly typed the current text on it in and saved it as copyright infringement. What do I do? I need urgent help.  Atterion (Talk |Contribs ) 18:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It has already been deleted by another administrator. I should point out, however, that your brother's use of your account is extremely unwise. I understand that you did not intentionally allow him onto the account, but shared accounts (which is what was happening there) is disallowed. It also could be considered a compromised account, which is a blockable issue. You need to secure your account better, perhaps by logging off when your brother is around to make edits such as these. You may also want to see WP:BROTHER. Although you are not blocked, that page will give you an idea of how the community reacts to situations such as these. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to start some article writing
I thought of you; look at the reference I added here. Now get to work! Drmies (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've been doing a little! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

More words
Given your word expertise I thought you (and perhaps some of your TPSs) might be interested in this, which appears to be a research project that gives an interesting measurement of your vocabulary. I tried it; I began to get into trouble at "epigone". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few things I like about that. Firstly, it contains one of my favorite words: "abscond". Secondly, it contains both "portmanteau" and "malapropism". If you don't understand why that's amusing, you are missing out. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I am not a rollbacker, but would like to be. As you can see here, I did not succeed in becoming one. But what I am wondering is why I am seeing the rollback button in user's contributions, page histories, and revisions when I am not a rollbacker.  Atterion  Talk •Contribs   13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be because you're using Twinkle, which has a function that mimics rollback. See Twinkle/doc. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for user page protection
Hello GW, I was curious about something. My user page has only been vandalized once, but I'm wondering if it could be semi-protected. The reason for this is that I have caused some users to get mad at me for reverting their edits that were unconstructive, or did not need to be done, or whatever, (as you can see here) and my user page could be a target of vandalism from users like that. Also there are other reasons I want my user page semi-protected. The reason I did not request this at RFPP is because some random admins that are not familiar with me might not understand why or whatever. Plus, I've already recently made two requests there. I thought it would be better to ask an admin I'd talked to before. Anyway I'm wondering if an indefinite semi could be done to my user page.  Atterion  Talk •Contribs   22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages are not protected preemptively. One instance of vandalism does not convince me that your user page needs to be protected, so I wouldn't worry too much. If it becomes an issue, you can always request it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deleting Epic Meal Time Edit
Hello. I know I can't exactly provide total and specific evidence that there are sexual undertones in Epic Meal Time, but believe me, I wasn't just writing my opinion, if you watch Epic Meal Time, you will see what I mean. Sorry if I wasn't able to provide a written source for that information.

-Kalinga01
 * I do watch Epic Meal Time, and I understand what you're saying, but that's still an observation that you are making about the show and, as such, considered original research. WP:OR states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift9 has relaunched his community-deleted political blog
Dear GorillaWarfare, you were involved in this deletion. Timeshift9 has relaunched his community-deleted political blog on his user page.

The 22nd May deletion decision: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9

13th of June deletion review. The May deletion was confirmed: Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5

On the of 23rd July, Timeshift9 relaunches his political blog: User:Timeshift9

Thank you, Seashells52 (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Trout
--Hello, I&#39;m a Wikipedian! (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sustained harassment and wikihounding of User:Timeshift9
I am of the view that you have chronically overstepped in this case by being an enabler for sockpuppets waging an outside political campaign against this user. If there really is an issue, there are hundreds of other admins without a history in this that can manage it. Consider this a warning that dispute resolution will be initiated against you, with a case made to ArbCom that your behaviour is contrary to that expected of a Wikipedia administrator, if any further enabling or harassment occurs. Orderinchaos 02:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seashells52 has been blocked as a sockpuppet, yes. I did not immediately recognize him/her as a sock purely because I'm not familiar with the sockmaster. Although I agree that the user's edit history is very unusual, it's not something I saw as disruptive because, like I said, I was unaware of the sockmaster. I'm not really sure what you were going for when you opened an SPI case against me, either. Generally the SPI case would be opened with regards to Seashells52 and not myself, as I've not, to my knowledge, shown any evidence of socking. You say "There is no evidence beyond conduct.", but I don't believe any of my conduct has supported me being a sock. What is it that makes you think I am?


 * As for my block log, which I noticed you brought up in the SPI case, I sockblocked myself once when trying to block another user. It was a mistaken self-block, not some legitimate sockblock that I overturned myself. Anyway, I am a bit taken aback that you opened an SPI case without so much as notifying me.


 * In regards to Timeshift, I will reply on his user talk. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FTR, I didn't bring up your block log (one of the other admins replying to me did) - I didn't check it, or know of its existence, and had I done so, it wouldn't have led me to the view I had. It just seems to me that you've been on a three-month campaign against a productive user trying to drive him into retirement, jumping on any bandwagon that rolls in that direction, and I don't see the point - it's very saddening to see someone who I'd until relatively recently respected as a fellow editor and admin act in such a manner.
 * It's worth pointing out that this entire thing has been one other user in various guises - that user is himself banned from Wikipedia for threatening to kill an Australian federal member of parliament, something which made the national papers over here, and not someone that anyone should be giving the time of day to, much less enabling. Your first intervention in this case was in support of that user, so you can hardly claim ignorance. In the initial stages I thought it had been an MO of setting up a new account to "raise a concern" with you which you could then act upon with a main account, but when someone else pointed me to the Ultimo55 and ultimately Enidblyton11 accounts, an alternative narrative of a psychotic troll coming back for more actually made more sense. My ability to research the situation was sorely limited by having been traffic shaped by my ISP (a common situation in Australian when one downloads over the limit one has paid for), otherwise I may well have come to the same conclusion on my own. Orderinchaos 12:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * i wouldn't go as far as harrassment, but the optics are awful. when you have deletions of uploaded images, it looks like selective enforcement & wolf pack. far better to go to a third party admin to coach the editor; after all he is showing good faith. while i'm not a fan of tip toe up to the line, he does make a point: now that the can of worms of editing political speech on user pages is open, what are the guidelines for how much and how formatted? what is extensive? are extensive referenced quotes allowed? are quotes from article talk; deletion discussions? etc. could it be ok as an essay? a consensus would just look better. i am having a hard time understanding why all the wiki energy is expended on user space rather than article space. Slowking4 : 7@1|x 17:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked the community to review the user page at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

question
Hi there User:GorillaWarfare, are you open to recall as an admin? --Surturz (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An attempted recall would be an extreme move, especially after the comments at the ANI linked above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've honestly not put too much thought into the matter. For now I suppose I'll address the recall issue on a case-by-case basis, and in this case, I am certainly not open to the idea. I have done nothing even close to deserving of recall, and I think you'd find the recall discussion to be not only unsuccessful, but also a waste of everyone's time. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help with the article I tried to create. I will gather all the citations and try again later in the week. I thought I can just work way at the article and add to it as I find things about her and people like her. She really has made a big difference to many people who have been struggling with allergies and gluten issues for years. Just thought it would be helpful to share the resource with where people actually look for proper resources. ApplicationError (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's much easier to draft an article by creating a userspace draft. It's far less likely that an article in the user namespace will be deleted, although restrictions on copyright violations, etc. do still apply. I would suggest creating the draft article there, and then moving it to the mainspace when you feel it is ready. You can create a draft at a page such as User:ApplicationError/Leanne Vogel. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Help?
MY user page says in categories (@ the bottom) that I live in Europe and Macedonia. I dont live in Europe I live in Australia. Is there anyway of changing this? Please answer on my talkpageMacedoniarulez (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Macedoniarulez
Hi GW. I saw your messages on Macedoniarulez's talkpage (ex. ) and I thought of letting you know about two redirects recently created by this user: FORMER OTTOMAN REPUBLIC OF GREECE and FOROG. As I understand it, both are subject to ARBMAC sanctions. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess it resolved itself, permalink. AGF and all that. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems a little suspect, but I'm willing to AGF. I'll try to keep an eye on the whole deal. Thanks for letting me know! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. But AGF also saves some time investigating further, as long as this incident doesn't repeat. Thank you again for your time. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We now have Macedonia stolen land and Macedonia land redirecting to Partition of Macedonia, a newly-created POV fork and clear propaganda piece from a single source and possible copyvio. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Zeena LaVey
I saw your work on this article. It was actually deleted last year. Articles for deletion/Zeena Schreck. However there was little participation in that AFD and the new version clearly has less fluff and more sources (though the new citations are a bit weak), so there's no reason I can see to speedy delete it. The editor who created it and related articles seems to be a serious fan, with access to obscure sources. IIRC, the old article had problems with various factions arguing over who created or led which groups. I hope it's less of a problem this time around.  Will Beback   talk    21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's difficult to verify any of the sources, since they do seem to be pretty obscure. However, the subject does appear to be notable, and there isn't anything in the text that rings any major alarm bells for me. I'm willing to AGF, though I will work to verify some more of the content. I'm working on rewriting The Satanic Bible, and ended up noticing that page. The image was clearly a fair use violation, so I sort of went from there. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a topic about which I know almost nothing, and I've only been involved to keep an eye on things. If you need editorial or administrative help with that or related articles feel free to give a holler. Glad to see someone else improving the articles in this field, which is a bit of a backwater.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it true you hold the copyright to the image used on this article? I am in active cooperation with the Schrecks' legal representative and he had told me to use a different image for the article, which you seem to have removed. Twarwick666 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That image is a cropped version of an image that was released into the public domain by its copyright owner, User:Will Beback. The image that I removed was an album cover uploaded to Wikipedia, claiming fair use. However, because the image was illustrating an article on Zeena LaVey and not the album itself, it was a violation of the fair use guidelines. If the copyright owner uploads it to Wikipedia, or you upload it and have the copyright owner send permission to the OTRS team (see Donating copyrighted materials), the original image could be used. However, the image quality of the image currently being used is probably higher than that of the album cover. In my opinion, the current image should be used instead of that. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thank you! School is going quite well, though I obviously haven't had as much time as I might like for Wikipedia... Hope things are well with you as well! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted?
I wrote an article on Fastjizz. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smd5071 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:WEB. Wikipedia has a set of notability guidelines that articles need to meet in order to warrant inclusion. When articles, such as yours, don't make any claims of notability, they can be speedy deleted per criterion A7. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the vandal revert on my talk page. You got to it so quickly I didn't even see what was written :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with deletion of Gop resignation letter
Hello GorillaWarfare, could you please lend a hand with my, continuing problems with getting a new article up, origionally I tried to post Gop resignation letter in the main article but was given a whole list of reasons why that would not work, each one I had an answer to - when I chose to go an alterante route it was shut down in an instant Kjmonkey has been the editor that I have the most problems with -

collect has nominated this for deletion, and he has also refused to use the words Crony capitalism in any article about Rick Perry, but that is a different issue.

lastly I see that you use a secure name of real person signature, if you see my talk page on Rick Perry, I have suggested that edits to Political canidiates only be edited with actual persons to confirm that they are not connected financially or employed by (Wiki policy) or happen to be a foreign national Federal Election Commision policy.

I have to lead by example and need to get my own real life idenity up soon if I am to have any crediablity in this reguard.

Lastly do you remember this,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

The article of course notes the use of fake accounts for American purposes and I believe naturally that other countries could use the same tactic to influence American elections

thx, Chris Connolly Snettie 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Snettie. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to do here, but I'm happy to try to give you some advice. Regarding your GOP letter, I agree that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As has been pointed out on your talk page, the letter has been added to Wikisource here. Wikisource is a much better place for documents such as these in their entirety.


 * Regarding the use of the term "crony capitalism", it is understandable that you are running into some opposition. This is a pretty heavily opinionated term, so it must be handled carefully. It is good to back up this accusation with reliable sources, such as the New York Times. I am not going to make some type of executive decision on the matter, if that's what you're looking for, but I can advise you to review the relavent policies and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV) and try to form a more level-headed and coherent argument on the talk page of that article.


 * Now, I'm not sure what you mean by "I see that you use a secure name of real person signature". I edit under the username "GorillaWarfare", and am very careful to avoid attaching my real name to any of my edits. I prefer to remain more or less anonymous on-wiki. Regarding your suggestion that only accounts linked to people's real-life identities edit, that is pretty much against Wikipedia's core principles. Wikipedia summarizes its fundamental principles in something we call the five pillars. One of them is the idea that anyone can edit. Although there are limits to this (protection of articles against vandalism, etc.) we also have systems (in the form of edit requests) to allow anyone to improve just about any page. If it were required to connect my account to my real-life identity to edit some pages, I would be completely unwilling to edit them. This would be a massive restriction on editing, as it would disallow edits by enormous groups of people: both pseudonymous editors and IP editors. Wikipedia actually warns against using your real name when editing (see WP:REALNAME) to avoid harassment and potential controversy. So, you should feel no need to use your real name or try to confirm your real-life identity. Although you are welcome to reveal your personal identity, you should not expect others do the same. Anonymity is something we welcome, and it is unreasonable to ask people not to edit unless they give that up.


 * Now, I'm not really sure what you mean by the sock puppet article. There's not much I can do to counter the use of social media accounts to influence American elections, and I'm not really sure what the on-wiki implications are. If you could explain that point more fully, I could probably give you a better response. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Floral Terrace
you deleted our bands wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floral_Terrace can you "undelete" it so our team can properly fix it. thanks j

___________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndismal (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me how they meet the notability guidelines at WP:BAND? I'm finding very little coverage in reliable sources. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs
Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
 * Sociology of Poverty
 * Architectural Design
 * Introduction to Educational Psychology
 * Intro to Mass Communication
 * Psychology Seminar
 * Theories of the State
 * Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:


 * Housing and Social Policy
 * Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
 * History & Systems
 * Horror Cinema
 * Digital Media... just bits in a box
 * Composition I
 * Telecommunications Management
 * Training Systems
 * Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
 * Art and Terrorism
 * Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey
Hi GorillaWarfare!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sarah. Just a quick question: have you gotten authorization for this? Your survey is considered to be active research, which requires authorization by the community. You should read m:Research:Subject recruitment and submit a request for subject recruitment, if you have not already. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi GorillaWarfare, I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). I'm trying to create a balanced and diverse list, and you qualify in the "people who I opposed at RFA but who turned out to be good admins anyway" category. Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! I appreciate your asking me this, and I'm pleased to hear I turned out to be not so bad after all :P I would rather not be on the list, though. I personally think that you should only open yourself to recall if you think you need to do so, and if someone else thinks you should, they should take it up with the community. Thanks for the offer, though! I'm sure it will never even be an issue. Cheers :] – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T16:36:18Z, expires 2011-10-14T23:36:18Z: Vandalism
 * 2)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T16:36:37Z, expires 2011-10-14T23:36:37Z: Vandalism
 * 3)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T16:44:55Z, expires 2011-10-14T23:44:55Z: Vandalism
 * 4)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T16:57:28Z, expires 2011-10-14T23:57:28Z: Vandalism
 * 5)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T17:03:05Z, expires 2011-10-15T00:03:05Z:
 * 6)  by GorillaWarfare at 2011-10-13T16:40:47Z, expires infinity:
 * Thank you for letting me know! I've reblocked all of them to fix the issue. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Risbury?
I have received several aggressive and threatening messages from you 'warning' me about edits you claim I made on a wikipedia topic titled 'Risbury.' I have never posted on such a topic and have no idea who or what a Risbury is or what posts you are talking about. I assume you have been sending these messages in error. Please remove your threats to remove edit privileges with immediate effect and in future make sure you have the right person before sending such messages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.50.220 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you see the messages I left on your talk page as threatening. They are user warning templates that many editors on Wikipedia use to discourage disruptive editing. It's understandable that you are receiving messages in error. Although your IP address did make the edits (see Special:Contributions/86.143.50.220), it's possible that someone else on your network performed the edits. It's also very possible that your IP is dynamic, and that it was assigned to someone else entirely. The best way to stop receiving messages like this in error is to create an account. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second these comments. If you are getting messages about edits that you did not perform, then you need to create an account. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you help me out here?
Could you please, please, please immediately "unprotect" or "unblock" Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia so that me and Andrew Lancaster can go in and edit it? Yes, I have left messages on the talk page of the protecting admin, but he hasn't responded as he is on a prolonged vacation. Doing this would harmonize and bring up-to-date all of the articles on South Asian population genetics, so that everybody has freely available and accurate info. Muchas, muchas gracias.

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should leave a request in the unprotection section of the requests for page protection page. I'm a little concerned about your history of edit warring and NPOV issues, so you might be better off changing the page through the use of edit requests. Also, I should point out that it's generally bad form to spam the user talk pages of multiple people when you want something done. Instead of asking six different administrators to unprotect the page, you really should use the RFPP page. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well sorry, I didn't know that. And btw, I was a newby, so I wasn't familiar with the proper protocol in getting something accomplished around here. Can't fault me for that. Besides, I only edit warred once, with somebody who should have known better. And guess what? Almost all of the changes I proposed have been accepted. So what does that tell you? What does a fellow have to do to get something done around here?

--Bodhidharma7 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are new. However, because the page was protected due to your edit war, you can understand why I might be hesitant to unprotect it at your request. That's why I would prefer you take it to RFPP. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Determining the End
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.119.226.222 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is you're trying to convey to me here... Do you have a Wikipedia-related question or comment? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like we were all just trolled ... somehow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Contents
Hi GorillaWarfare, Great job on your presentation yesterday! Very Professional. How can I find the articles that include "Emotion" as one line-item in their "Contents" (not "See also") section? Thanks for your willingness to help! ChrisNolder (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm glad it was useful. I'm not sure that there is a way to search for a section heading. You can search for "emotion" in the search bar and click "Containing emotion" at the bottom, which will search for the word in all articles. However, I don't believe it's possible to search for the section heading itself. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bravo (supermarket)
Hey GW,

Last December you deleted Bravo (supermarket) citing CSD A7. Is there a chance you could userfy the article for me. While the article may have needed cleanup in terms of asserting notability, there's no doubt in my mind that a supermarket chain with dozens of stores in the highly populated northeastern US and the southeast is notable. It seems that the article should have been cleaned up, not deleted, but that's just me. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't much of an article, so I don't know how much of a start it will give you, but feel free to give it a go. I've userfied it to User:Oknazevad/Bravo (supermarket). Cheers! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! oknazevad (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__