Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 14

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


Happy New Year, GorillaWarfare!

Happy New Year!

GorillaWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iggy (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year to you also! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Where?

Hello, I have as asked made response but yuou did not yet. Please to making response of correct edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.11.79 (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello GorillaWarfare. A reminder about Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap. Your contribution is appreciated. Ear-phone (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sinek

Regarding my edit of the Simon Sinek page: It seems as though all of the sources used to justify the page's existence have the same level of notability, so I'm somewhat confused as to why the bar is set higher for articles detailing criticism of the author. As it stands, it seems as though the page is just a vanity entry for the author being insulated from criticism by Wikipedia's (apparently) unbalanced notability guidelines. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:A08D:F154:5485:9998 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. I'm currently using a semi-automated program to review changes to Wikipedia articles, so when using it I only see the additions that you've made and not the existing article. Sorry if there seems to be a discrepancy regarding the existing sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced a few sources that were broken or particularly weak, but I do think there's just enough there to show that Sinek is notable. The sources that were being used are not comparable to Quora or Medium (WP:UGC). It is unfortunately heavy on interviews as sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:30:27, 7 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Wdelisio


Hi GorillaWarfare, Thanks for your review. I am very new to Wikipedia and would love to improve. The reason I started editing or adding some articles, is that I found a few articles on IT Systems (in particular Network monitoring and management) not very up-to-date. It's plenty of very seasoned software, while there is little space for new/emerging software solutions. So I would like to do a better work and happy to learn how.

In any case:

  • I agree the feature description is too long (and to be honest, almost copied from their website, even though I have verified it by using the software). I will compress it a lot, and leave improvements and adjustments to the community.
  • You asked to find "more sources that are not press releases". I will do it for anything related to the software description and features! But actually most of press-release-related references actually related to the history of the company (foundation, acquisitions, opening of new offices, awards). I agree that most of those information are probably originated from press-releases, but they are quite factual events, relaunched from trusted organisations/website in that domain. I would love to get more advice on this.

Thank you!

Walter


Wdelisio (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdelisio: In order for the article to be accepted, you need to be able to show that Domotz Pro meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order to do this, you need to show that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Press releases do not meet the independence criterion, and so cannot be used to demonstrate notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick

Not clear why these edits were removed. Reconsider suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtchng (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtchng: See the guidelines on external linking and links normally to be avoided. Adding this link appears to be an attempt to promote Chiswick House & Gardens. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - still not convinced that these removals are consistent with the other information on the page and throughout Wikipedia, please consider:

1. The page already refers to a single office building housing 1500 people (and its history). The edit added a material office complex opposite the single office building already quoted. Chiswick Park houses 9000 people, so would appear to be balanced to include reference to it to provide readers with a full picture of the town.

2. Removal of the link to Chiswick House - the House is already referred to the in the article. Many English country houses are linked to in the page of the town which houses them - kindly take a look at the English town Chatsworth, and you will see a link to Chatsworth House. The link to Chiswick House is consistent with this. Please note Chiswick House was built in the 1700s and is of historical importance to the town.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtchng (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtchng: It might be okay to re-add #1, though it should be accompanied with a reference to support the information. Also note that there was a typo in the text you added. As for Chiswick House, if it is indeed an important building it should be discussed in the article body (with citations to show that it is important). Adding a link to the house's website doesn't add much value to people reading the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for your service at Arbcom. Happy New Year! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy New Year to you as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information

Michael has not been convicted with manslaughtee that is the wrong information from wrong sources Allen Terry (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Allen Terry: There are two sources that appear fairly reliable that are stating she has been convicted. Do you have reliable sources showing that's not the case? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isla de Mona

Typically looking at an geographical article, population is listed, so shall it be added? 2607:FEA8:A760:9A7:A173:46DF:3874:355A (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake—I've re-added the content I removed. Thank you for checking! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protections

Thanks for your bold protections of Jacksonville Jaguars and Blake Bortles. Is it possible for you to also protect the 2017–18 NFL playoffs page? Recently, new users and anons have consistently added scores while the games were still ongoing (a violation of both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LIVESCORES.) Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot of the edits have been productive, despite the WP:LIVESCORES violations. Do you think protection is really necessary? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Highfield

The correct article here is Mark Paul Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle, as this is the correct name, so the redirection should go here. I checked Burke's Peerage (www.burkespeerage.com), searching under 'Highfield' and under results 41-50 the third entry confirms that the surname is now Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle and the family entry is under Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle too. Plus, I checked for online use, and I found that the name in use is Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle, as in http://www.royalsocietysa.org.za/?page_id=136 , http://www.armorial-register.com/arms-sco/lindley-highfield-mp.html , http://royalcentral.co.uk/author/reportermark , https://companycheck.co.uk/director/916027933/LORD-OF-WILMINGTON-MARK-PAUL-LINDLEY-HIGHFIELD-OF-BALLUMBIE-CASTLE/summary , and https://suite.nomadit.co.uk/directory.php5?object=member&action=viewprofile&organisation=5&member=2836 . 149.12.1.131 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tru Tru

Wow, you're pretty. ....OK. beyond that, i have to admit i could almost ...almost care less what this is about, let me expound. There is, for starters an overabundance of non-cited material on Wiki. Wiki's communication structure is wanting and, in general, we are lucky if Wiki comes up to 90-95% when it comes to accurate info. I used to think, well, if somebody is wrong, then the masses will not stand for it and thus fix it, and that's prior to any thoughts of my own participation. After participating it became clear to me that Wiki is for amusement and getting a feel for something, perhaps a guide to what to look for elsewhere, but it would be a complete mistake to allow it's information as a reference for any official use or for school work at any level. Stay with me, I would love to hear your response --- My dismay came when in the Matrix (franchise) I simply corrected a mistake; that being, the Matrix is a Post-Apocalyptic story as opposed to a Cyberpunk tale (barely an actual word), whose standards it doesn't meet even by Wiki's own definition. Back and forth I went as some ass kept changing it back. ..cyberpunk, incidentally, being a bastardization of the somewhat understandable (in usage) Steampunk ...refers to a World where people are living in high-tech, low-life standard. This refers to stories like Ghost in the Shell, Blade Runner, Elysium, etc, where people cannot manage harmony in spite of the tech they have available. If the person whom I argue is wrong were right, then every and any story where it's man against machine would take on that lowbrow term as opposed to simply science fiction. Terminator, Demon Seed, Mecha-Godzilla, whatahaveyou. There is a huge diff in being at war with intelligent machines and living shabbily due to them. Best example: Matrix could also be called a Love story. A Philosophical Exploration. An Adventure story. And while all these apply, it would be misleading to label the Matrix any one of those. ...I will be interested in what you have to say. ....But i found the experience of participation revealed Wiki as discouraging and bogged down with pettiness and disinformation. You're young, beautiful, probably in college, and frankly, we all need an outlet, but this is a waste of your time. -Best to you. PS ...the last note I made (one day for fun) was that Thanos does not wear tight white pants. Its a fact that can't be cited. ...but it should further demonstrate to you the futility of dumping your hours into this. Write a book!

The Tru Tru (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP back at it again

Hello! I see you recently blocked 2A02:587:3A0A:6B00:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) however they are making disruptive edits again at Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and Portrayal of women in American comics. Is it possible to block them again? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, they have been blocked by another editor. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Hi, thanks for bringing this up! Glad to see it was handled already. If you see something like this in the future I definitely recommend making a note at WP:AIV. I often don't check my talk page for a day or more, so for things needing rapid responses you'll definitely be better off there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

My edits are truthful. Not controversial. In my edit on Vijay Mallya. He is a burglar. That is the truth. Why wasnit edited back? Truthfulupdates (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthfulupdates: His conviction is discussed at length in the article. Your changes don't add anything beyond non-neutral commentary on the person, which is inappropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply editing what he is famous for. Businessman. Yes. Politician. Yes. Burglar. Yes. Please refer to news articles, programmes that detail in length about the magnitude of money he stole from Indian banks. I simply don’t agree with you and your hostile nature to this trivial but truthful edit. Truthfulupdates (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthfulupdates: I see you've been given a two day hiatus, so if you plan to return to editing maybe use that time to review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Epshteyn

He is a spy. But I added alleged and a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.111 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it again. Please read about what is and is not a reliable source, as well as the requirements for articles about living people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J "Buddy" Cianfrani

I was wondering why you reverted the addition of Henry Cianfrani to the List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. Please elaborate. Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't—I removed the link to the list from the "See also" section of his article. He is still included in the list article. I removed the see also link because a user was going through and mass-adding the link to tens of articles very rapidly, without any apparent consideration of whether adding the link was in keeping with WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wa3frp (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Millward

Can you tell me who you are and what your level of expertise is in Rugby League and particularly the carer of Roger Millward that you you just poked your nose into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.79 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)‎[reply]

Check out WP:NPOV please. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer the question? Or is it that you know absolutely nothing about rugby league whatsoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.79 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about rugby. That doesn't change the fact that your edit was in violation of WP:NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some facts and was kind enough to tidy the intro up. Facts you wouldn't have the knowledge about...I suggest you keep you your nose out in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.79 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit, because you're still not citing sources for the claims you're adding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.

New: "Black women"

New: "Mathematicians and statisticians"

New: "Geofocus: Island women"

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:4IM listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:4IM. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:4IM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding of last change

I don't know how to leave messages on wikipedia and just wanted to say that the last change i did was not done by me. I did not even use wikipedia for months now. I know nothing of the person whose wikipedia page I changed and do not know anything about what happened and who used this ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.169.20 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Male Tears Barnstar

The Male Tears Barnstar
Congratulations! Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am honored! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best part about this mug is when someone (inevitably) complains about it, you can just hold it under their eye for free refills. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the record straight

You read the riot act at me so strongly here that though I don't usually harp on older issues, I thought I'd let you know that my intuition rarely fails me, it's often just a question of time and finding the right hook - which another admin did. So this will put you up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


April 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons.


Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

PatLaffan block

You blocked PatLaffan for 31 hours but I just filed this report on him: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare, I've just extended this block to indefinite per that SPI. Hopefully converting your arbitration enforcement block to an indefinite block for ban evasion didn't violate the various rules around arbitration enforcement! (please trout me or worse if I did). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for sniffing them out and letting me know! No objections from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a wiki lawyer but I would read that as "He has an arbitration enforcement block for the next 30 hours, running concurrent with an indef site block for ban evasion" and if for some reason the SPI results get overturned immediately he's still got the arbitration enforcement block to sit through."--Jorm (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the week-long topic ban, yes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that this person is here to improve the encyclopedia, so I support all blocks and/or bans of this account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: My CU results have been posted at the SPI above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

108.29.47.197

Thank you very much for blocking this disruptive IP. I was wondering if per this [1] talk page access should be revoked? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know—I've removed talk page access. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media and gender

Hi, thank you for your advice. I have been working on this page for a while in my sandbox as a student editor. The original creator of the page did not speak English natively, which was a huge contributor to the need for lots of changes. The other reason the entire page needed editing was it was extremely biased. It has been titled "Media and gender," yet as it stood when I found it and as you have now reverted it to, it only focuses on women in the media and discusses men in comparison. It also had an extreme amount of uncited information. What I had removed in my edits was everything that was not cited or inherently biased.

About identifying this as "western" media - I did this because the only information the page had to begin with dealt with western culture. I would love to expand it to be global, however I simply don't have time. I thought that at least acknowledging that this was western not global would be more accurate. I would love to actually just change the title to something like "Gender representations in Western Media" but to be honest, I have not yet learned how or if a page title can be changed. I'm definitely open to any advice and suggestions, and I understand that I should have started smaller with changes. However, I do feel that my version of the page better reflects an objective, informative, and accurate account than what you have reverted it to. I also don't know how to start smaller with my changes since I feel that an entire restructuring of the page's outline is necessary for less bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTTorres (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MTTorres: I'll take another look at the page. Pages can be renamed (technically pages are moved), although if there is no more general page it might be worth just tagging the page as needing to be expanded to include more global views. I'll give it another pass through. Again, thanks for your contributions! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MTTorres: Yeah, I take it back -- your version seems to be higher quality. There might be some stuff that can be salvaged from the earlier page, but yours is an improvement. I've reverted it, and will make some minor tweaks just to get it a little more in line with the tone we're looking for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTTorres (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ahead block me

Block me !!!!!!!!! Haha YeeDoggo (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calum

Help me make a biography about MEEEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Delane Scott (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on the deletion of User:Garretttehrobloxplayer

Hi there! This is User:Garretttehrobloxplayer from a new anonymous account, asking what blocking an account does for the user, the blocker, and the public. Also, what does "with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{OversightBlock}})" mean? Does it mean a permanent edit suspension on my account, and that I can make edits either not signed in or on another account? Thanks for your help in advance! An anonymous user from the United States of America (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NotARabbit (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing setup

I was trying to make out your screen, I assume that's an external editor? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I actually took that picture while I was working, not editing Wikipedia, so that's Sublime Text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! I never tried external editors, but was intrigued by the idea. At any rate, cute cat. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I do any long-form work in Wikitext, I always do it in Sublime Text and then copypasta.--Jorm (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem...

Hi GW,
Are you 100% sure about this? (Do I even need to link the page?)
I'm reading recent media about this too. (It's a public holiday here - N'oublions jamais l'Australie - which is why I'm editing in the middle of the day.)
Pete AU AKA --Shirt58 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: I'm not sure what you're asking... what is your concern? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way you don't know what they are talking about. With the logs showing the AfDs, and only admins can have access to a page that was Deleted & Salted by a 3 admin panel. Looks kind of like a supervote. Though the current page reads much differently from the page that was deleted. Dave Dial (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirt58: Doesn't strike me as a supervote, but maybe I'm misreading the policy wording. Do you think it needs to go to AfD? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, looks like there's commentary at Talk:Involuntary celibacy. Might make sense to move this conversation there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GW, by the time I wrote this talk page comment at 03:14, 25 April 2018 UTC,
@GorillaWarfare and Gamaliel: All three of us are WP:ADMINs and can see deleted content.
GW,I think your 03:19, 25 April 2018 comment: "I'm not sure what you're asking... what is your concern?" was disingenuous. It was quite obvious from the context- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/toronto-van-attack-facebook-post-may-link-suspect-with-incel-group - "reading recent media"
I question why you have recreated this article despite the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As she writes, it's discussed in detail at the article talk page. Special section for it. Paragraphs of discussion. Where she has been quite responsive. Feel free to join in, but please do it there, as forking the conversation onto multiple parallel discussion pages is not as efficient as some might think. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirt58: I was not being disingenuous. I knew you were referring to the Toronto attack, I did not know what "Are you 100% sure about this?" was referring to. I see now you mean "are you sure you should be writing an article on a topic that was deleted four times already," but at the time I didn't know if it was that, "Are you sure you should be writing this without discussing it with someone?", "Are you sure you want to be writing about such a controversial topic?" etc. Anyway, as GRuban says, there's more discussion about that on Talk:Involuntary celibacy — it would help not to fragment the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This shitstorm was coming whether you wrote the article or someone else did. But hopefully you take an interest in the article, as well as other editors, so it doesn't become a platform for the same people who created the subculture. We don't want people who have issues to believe that the illness is being involuntary celibate and not the what leads one to become involuntary celibate. Dave Dial (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm planning on keeping up with it. I tried to be careful with my words when writing it to be clear that it's not a psychological condition/accepted phenomenon, and I plan to make sure the article doesn't begin sway away from that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my opinion. <shrugs shoulders, walks away>
Back to the coalface for me.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare

I'm not saying you did this, but the involuntary celibacy wiki article changed form an article about involuntary celibacy to an article that portrays adult virgins as terrorists, you can look at the sources of the article yourself, they are a joke of a mix of, current events, biased blog posts, feminist articles and hate-watch articles. The entire thing has everything to do with a political agenda against incels, the same one anonymous 4channers or feminists posing as 4channers have. Willwill0415 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article. I'm glad you like my original version so much GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the murders of 25 people by adherents of this "movement", and the wounding of dozens more, results in a shift in the narrative about how reliable sources describe the topic. That makes sense to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you

Hi GorillaWarfare! I'm on and off Wikipedia lately and only just noticed that you're not on ArbCom anymore. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your long and excellent service as an arbitrator. Hope you are well! AlexEng(TALK) 03:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hope you're well also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you for your long years of service to this encyclopedia, especially your work at ArbCom. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to you too, @Cullen328:! Happily now that I'm off the ArbCom, I have time for a) the things on Wikipedia I want to spend time on and b) the things I think really matter! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What am I being warned for?

I didn't break any rules Willwill0415 (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Willwill0415: We have a process called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you first boldly edit an article and it's reverted (as has happened a few times with your edits to the involuntary celibacy article), the next step is to discuss the edit on the talk page in order to reach a decision on whether the content should be changed. Re-adding the content is not productive, and is liable to lead to sanctions for edit warring.
As for WP:BRD, I first mentioned it in this edit summary, then again in this notice on your talk page. These are what I was referencing in this edit summary. It seems like you're missing a lot of the things I'm trying to say to you: asking what you were warned for when it was mentioned explicitly both in an edit summary and on your talk page, and referring to sources as editorial pieces...[that] are just opinion pieces after I 1) finally got you to tell me which sources you felt were unreliable, and then 2) went into great detail to explain how the sources meet our reliable sourcing criteria. I'll repost this on Talk:Involuntary celibacy since I see you've repeated the question there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons.
File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg



New: "Women of the Sea"

New: "Villains"

New: "Women in Sports"

New: "Central Eastern European women"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you userfy the original article for me?

I was wondering if you could userfy the full history of the original Involuntary celibacy plus talk page back into my user space with move protection User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I think we might have something here. I've had it userfied before but, there might a version in the history which could be combine with the version in my sandbox. I was going to see if Wales would now be interested in restoring this. He expressed interest in the past here and said if additional sources were found he may be interested in opening a DRV himself. I think now is a good time. Valoem talk contrib 19:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: I'd be happy to, though I actually don't know how to userfy an article that has since been recreated... I'm trying to track down an admin who can tell me how :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this, if you want. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was wondering if I could also get Günter Bechly. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That one I do know how to do :) It's at User:Valoem/Günter Bechly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help :). I have a few (actually tons) of unrelated requests. DRV isn't what it use to be I was wondering if you could close a few open discussions, its seems like we are months behind and administrator today seems to be more afraid than ever to restore articles. There are a bunch of DRVs from April that are open including Ascot–Guildford line. Would you be interested in closing them? Valoem talk contrib 20:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting ready to head off to an event tonight so I can't look right now, but I'll try to remember to give it a look later today or tomorrow. Feel free to poke me if I forget. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Unfortunately the article has so many deleted revisions that trying to restore them caused a database error because it took too long. I technically could probably do it piecemeal, but I'm not going to click on more than a thousand checkboxes to do that, sorry. I've been told that stewards can undelete articles with many revisions without running into this problem, so you may want to contact the stewards to get it userfied. Huon (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just restore the history and talk page than? I know that might be controversial, but the page is protected. If any page stalking admin get the chance can they close Ascot–Guildford line? Valoem talk contrib 20:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking—restoring the page history is what Huon was unable to do for technical reasons. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I thought he had problems getting it userfied. Do you know any stewards? Valoem talk contrib 20:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just post over at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Valoem talk contrib 21:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on this version in the history? Valoem talk contrib 00:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It relies much too heavily on one source (the Donnelly study) and a lot of the other sources are really shaky (TVTropes, incelsite.org, a handful of blog posts). Do remember that the page has been deleted multiple times when it was in condition similar to that; those old revisions might be useful as a resource for picking out what good sources it did have, but should not be considered to actually be a viable end result. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Donnelly passes WP:PROF, I think she should be considered a reliable source. Valoem talk contrib 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, though. The study is also used in the current version of the article; I do agree that it's reliable. However, giant sections of the revision you linked are sourced only to that article, which is not appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring that version is probably not a good idea, but I think some parts of that version should be included as well as studies regarding involuntary celibacy in China during the Ming Dynasty. Valoem talk contrib 01:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring that version is definitely not a good idea. That version treats it almost as a medical condition, which is not at all supported by the majority of sources. As for the Ming Dynasty, this article is about the online subculture, which I don't believe existed during the Ming Dynasty. If you want to write an article (or shift this article toward) treating this as an actual phenomenon and not a term/subculture around which people have identified in recent years, you're going to need some damn good sourcing and a lot of it, and then achieve consensus for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sources we have, I put that chance at the same level as "camel through the eye of a needle."--Jorm (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW, at meta:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous - there is a request to restore the ~800 talk page edits of this page as well. Can you review and determine if this is appropriate (and possibly complete it?). Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 02:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in it, I guess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind, User:Graeme Bartlett already did it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a large number of revisions to restore, sometimes there is a database error (there was here). But on a second attempt it worked OK. I am guessing that the error happens because the elapsed time is too long. But there may be some caching going on that allows the second attempt to be much faster. If that still fails it should be possible to restore batches of revisions a few dozens at a time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This was absolutely out of process. This definitely should have had discussion on the Talk page, as it is restoring versions of an article that was deleted and salted. Here, Valoem asks if he can have the diffs stored on his user space, but on the Stewards page he states he was given permission to restore the article to article space. He also claimed Jimbo expressed interests in a DRV(with this link), but if you read the comments, which are about 1.5 years old, Jimbo says:

    At this point, I can only second the advice to "forget it and move on". I tend to agree that we could have an article on this topic, but I don't see how it is productive to keep arguing about it - whether we do or do not have this particular entry is relatively unimportant. I recommend waiting a year or (even better) two and then seeing if there is a material change in the kind and quantity of reliable sources.

    We have an article, about the online subculture. This seems to be another runaround the rules, and stretching the truth. Dave Dial (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave Dial: I see no harm at all in the revisions being restored, though I would have preferred they be restored to a userspace article and then deleted again. As far as I know there's no copyright/BLP/etc. issues that would complicate the restoration, the article was just deleted because it didn't meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Anytime someone requests an article be restored, if it doesn't have those kinds of issues, I pretty much automatically do it.
As for the point about Valoem misleading the Stewards, I don't think he did, or at least not intentionally. He linked directly to this request, and I think from part of the discussion here there was confusion about whether the technical limitation was to do with restoring the revisions or moving them. I will try to get the revisions moved to his userspace and then re-deleted from the mainspace—tried to do it myself just now but it didn't work how I expected.
As for Jimbo, that seems like a sort of pointless vein of discussion. Jimbo is largely uninvolved in content matters these days, and even if he did decide to restart a discussion, I doubt it would affect the outcome much that he was the one to start it (in fact, it could make it worse). I doubt he'd start the discussion, and I doubt "Jimbo says" has much clout with stewards even if it is accurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know about the "Jimbo says" stuff, but I thought it was worth mentioning what he actually said. In any case, I'm old and it's late. Going to bed. Sorry if you got frustrated with the restore/delete and such. Probably not too much of a big deal, except I see the forums talking about restoring old versions since it happened. But I guess that will have to be deal with sooner or later anyway.Alright, good night now. Dave Dial (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not trying to splain "Jimbo says", and yeah, that's definitely good to clarify. Agreed that it would have come up eventually, my thought is we might as well just address it head on, since folks wanting to legitimize the concept as a condition are going to do so with or without the old version of the article. Sleep well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the steward who restored the revisions, I can say that "Jimbo says" didn't factor into my decision at all. We use our bigdelete (and passive bigrestore) permissions at the request of local admins when such actions are in process for the local community. This request didn't strike me as contentious, but if it is a local admin should be able to re-delete the page and only restore the most recent ~800 revisions. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone attempts to restore the prior version without discussion I am sure many including myself will revert. @Dave Dial: can you link the forum where they expressed intention to restore? It seems difficult for them to do so given the protection on the page, however there are definitely small parts in historic versions that may warrant further discussion, specifically some parts of Denise Donnelly's studies found in the Journal of Sex Research a peer reviewed academic source, but I'll post in the discussion page. Valoem talk contrib 05:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to thank you for your co-operation—while we clearly disagree on many points with regards to this article, I do appreciate your willingness to step back and discuss the changes before trying to make them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I believe that the history of this article is in fact a case study in itself regarding Wikipedia. For example Günter Bechly's article became the focus of mainstream media when it was deleted despite him passing WP:PROF and GNG. The deletion was covered in mainstream media here and here. They are interesting reads. Valoem talk contrib 05:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Valoem, I'd appreciate that, if it happens. As for the links, one was to 4chan on /pol/, that I can't seem to find. The other one I saw was on incel.me, a new post talking about the 2012 version of the page, here. Dave Dial (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that editor at the bottom of the thread you linked "BrokenRotten" probably should be reported. Given what he posts about plus that avatar, I'd be shocked if he isn't about to do something violent. Valoem talk contrib 15:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that there was consensus to move anymore. Valoem talk contrib 20:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Involuntary celibacy -> Incel? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: Just closing the loop on this one—the old revisions are now at User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy and User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Valoem talk contrib 13:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Cosmic

Thanks for taking care of that Colton Cosmic sock (or whomever it was). I was looking up "cockend". I'm still not sure what it is, but I feel vaguely insulted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Food

Curd Rice
Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergamy

Hey Molly. I'm not sure if this revert is because you don't think the term should be translated to regular English or because you object to my specific translation. Could you clarify? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: Well that's embarrassing. My brain must have autocorrected hypergamy to "hypersexuality", so I was objecting to "marrying up" as a summary for that term. I've reinstated your edit, thanks for double checking! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

Hi, I've done more than 200 edits, & my account is 4 month old, but there is no "Autoconfirmed user" or "Confirmed User'" flag on my account, please help me to get the falg. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SwagLevelHigh: You are already autoconfirmed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: But there is no "AutoConfirmed User" flag on my page. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2018 (IST)
@SwagLevelHigh: If you look at Special:UserRights/SwagLevelHigh, you'll see it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Thank You very much. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2018 (IST)

Roots School System

Hi Gorilla Warfare, I requested protection for this article over five hours ago. The mass attack continues. Can you help? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All set. Sorry it took so long for an admin to get to it—I'll go try to deal with the other requests there also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pederasty

please tell me why you are reverting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifatalism (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antifatalism: Acroterion gave the warning I was just about to give. Please do not revert again without discussing on the talk page (see WP:BRD) or you will be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how any of this works, again. But what do you both not understand about my edits, that caused the original reverting? One of my edits was addressing a misquote (re oscar wilde), the other was relying on a bad translation and not only was I addressing that, but I was giving relevant further context. I don't understand what you think was wrong with it. And my ignorance at navigating this very confusing "talk" format is no excuse for y'all's failure to engage in discussion with me re my edits, rather than just faulting me for being new and threatening me with exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifatalism (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antifatalism: I'm sure Drmargi would be happy to explain if you post on the article's talk page as they requested. I reverted your edit because when you change a good-faith piece of an article and are reverted, you need to take it to the talk page and come to consensus, not just keep reverting (as you did). Please do that—as long as you don't keep reverting without consensus, you will not be excluded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: It's been nearly a month and nobody has responded to my post on the Talk page. Please respond, so that something like consensus can be gleaned from the lack of verbal disagreement toward my edits coming from the other editors. I'm not sure what to do when no one is agreeing or arguing with my proposal.
Looks like you've already pinged them there, otherwise I'd have suggested it. I reverted because you were edit warring; I have no opinion on your edit or knowledge of the subject, I just want you to work it out with Drmargi rather than reverting each other. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historia Regum Britanniae

Hi there I dont know how to leave message properly on your page. Why do you keep undoing the Bournmouth university study on the History of the kings of Britain. Its a seruous academic study and not including it is annoying. I am NOT the author of the study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.167.61 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018‎ (UTC)

I undid the edit because it introduced an error in the first paragraph ("aan (fictitious)") and because you didn't cite any sources. WP:INLINE well help you figure out how to add citations to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok - I see when I copied the section it didnt copy the reference properly - Ill sort that out now ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDoor (talk • contribs) 23:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MagikDoor: Great, thanks! Also as a quick note -- if you add ~~~~ after your talk page comments, it signs them for you so people know who left the message. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GW - Ive created an account now — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagikDoor (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hi, I'm Antoine. I edited the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH) yesterday by stating that it is one of Europe's leading business schools. This edit had grounds (according to me). NHH is the Norwegian member of CEMS - The Global Alliance in Management Education, which is one the most select club in the world for business education. In addition, admissions at NHH are very competitive: 4343 applicants for 470 spots at the undergraduate level (source: https://www.ba.no/utdanning/bergen/jobb/nhh-ned-fra-tronen/s/5-8-329917) and 1506 applicants for 118 offers sent in 2016 for international applicants at the postgraduate level (source: https://www.nhh.no/globalassets/om-nhh/annual-report-for-nhh-2016-2017.pdf, page 40). Last, but not least, the Norwegian School of Economics has educated some of the most brilliant economists of modern times: for instance, Finn E. Kydland (Nobel Prize in Economics 2004). Hence, I think the edit was justified. Have a nice day!

Antomrtn (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Antomrtn[reply]

@Antomrtn: Per our original research policy, in order to include such a claim in the article you need to find a source that actually states the school is one of Europe's leading business schools (and then cite that source in the article). We don't allow editors to take raw statistics and synthesize them into claims to include in articles themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: It was not so difficult to find such a source. Indeed, as I said before, NHH is member of the "Global Alliance in Management Education" or CEMS (among SSE, LSE, HEC, etc.). Wikipedia clearly states that CEMS is a cooperation between leading business schools and universities. Also see these sources: https://www.cems.org/about and https://www.study.eu/university/nhh-norwegian-school-of-economics
You need an independent source to verify these things—the website of CEMS itself is not independent, nor is a quote provided by NHH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

block

Hi, you noticed some issues Aproplan, I am taking your remarks very seriously and improving the article in the expected form. Can you give feedback of the latest version of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladjanssens (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wladjanssens: It's good that the article is no longer relying so much on Aproplan sources, but the remaining sources are largely press releases and promo articles. WP:RS and WP:GNG should give you some ideas of what you should be looking for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION

I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you read WP:RSOPINION? It states that opinion pieces are permissible if you use attribution from a credible source. Thylacoop5 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I assume you're referring to this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bigger concern was the "currycel" sentence, which is from an unreliable source. I removed the "ethnicel" sentence largely because it's an odd thing to cite to an opinion piece—I don't think Paradkar is saying that "ethnicels" are a member of the community in her opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

How do get the cat to edit on your computer? I've had cats and there's not a chance I could get them to do much more than type simple words. SlightSmile 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He'll do just about anything for tuna. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful - they say it makes them go mad. SlightSmile 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal user

Can you please revoke the talk page access for MaryPoppinCaps, and extend the block (if needed)? This user is continuously blanking their talk page, and I don't see how access to their talk page is going to be positive in this case. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking their userpage isn't disruptive enough to require removal of TPA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection request

Can you please Semi-Protect both African vulture trade and Indian vulture crisis for at least 1 month? That should at least prevent the page from getting vandalized so often. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the vandalism is from that one user, this should be handled by blocks of increasing length rather than restricting the page itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benemereti medal page

Hi there. I just wanted to ask you you had removed my recent edit? Chris.Revill (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.Revill: Your edit was unsourced, and not written in an encyclopedic tone ("John is generally considered to be a bit of a ledge"). See Help:Getting started for more info on how to properly edit here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I’ll have a look at the page. Chris.Revill (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferde Grofe Jr page removal

Please reinstate the Ferde Grofe Jr page - I responded in the talk section but you had already removed it without providing sufficient time to respond, which I have done now.

Thanks Indieshack (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Indieshack: I see you've already recreated it yourself. I've moved it to Draft:Ferde grofe jr. All articles need to be supported by reliable sources to support their content, and so it should not be included in the general article space until such references are added and notability is demonstrated. The guideline on creating your first article may be helpful as well—it's a great resource. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaryPoppinCaps removing other editor's talk page posts, etc.

Hi Gorilla Warfare. Since you've previously blocked MaryPoppinCaps for "persistent removal of content", I'm wondering if you'd mind keeping a watch on the account for while. The editor has been removing talk page posts from User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed) with edits like this and this. I tried to explain why they shouldn't be doing this here, but the page was blanked. Perhaps, you as an admin will have better luck explaining why removing other editors posts from another's user talk page is almost never a good idea, and removing one's own posts should only be done under certain circumstances. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I've extended the block to indefinite, since it seems that since they've returned to editing they are only removing content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(tpw) Their username seems rather inappropriate as well. I see that the account was renamed a couple of days ago, but I expect that Céréales Killer didn't notice the slang term. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Thanks for taking a look at this. It's unfortunate that another block was necessary, but the editor gave no indication they were interested in being WP:HERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Apparently they're a student editor who was dissatisfied with the grade they got for their assignment on Wikipedia. See the note that their teacher left. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I hope for the student's sake they don't find themselves having to take another class with that prof, they've certainly burnt that bridge. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to feral cat

I am somewhat disappointed that a fellow administrator would blanket revert the addition of cited content, rather than discussing it first with the editor in question. That feral cats can be vectors for disease, and that this fact is often used as a justification for control, valid or not, is in the article I linked to. Moreover the danger posed by feral cats is already discussed by the article. I have no desire to edit war so if you have particular issues with points please raise them, but don't wipe everything I added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it would've been better to reword rather than blanket revert. I've done so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNERSHIP

I would like to remind you that the above link is a policy, and a policy is a "standard that all users should normally follow". This is in regards to this recent edit at Incel. Thylacoop5 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flythecoop has been making the rounds of talk pages of various admins, retired arbitrators, and so on, explaining guidelines and policies to them. It's cute. EEng 15:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Cute" is one way to describe it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June Editathons

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My archives

I never had the pleasure of reading whatever the addition was to my archives, but thank you for removing it. There seem to be some odd people about. Giano (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AfD debate

Hi, I am writing to inform you that an AfD debate has been initiated for the article Environmental inequality in Europe (formerly Environmental racism in Europe). Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theunicyclegirl/record2

Just wondering why this userbox is sitting at your old username - consistency reasons, perhaps? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created it when I still had that account, and didn't see any reason to move subpages/etc. over. If you want to move it somewhere else (and fix the resulting broken transclusions), that's fine with me, but I'm not sure what the point would be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User 85.255.236.219

Hi, whilst visiting Wikipedia I found this message addressed to me:

March 2018 Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Antioxidant— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That is in fact my IP address but I didn't make that edit. By some coincidence I am actually a chemist, albeit working as an engineer. I can only assume the IP address has been recycled. I hope this makes no difference to my use of Wikipedia as I consider it an essential resource. The only articles I've ever edited were Opsimath and Battle of Prokhorovka, both in about 2012 and from a different IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.219 (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page: [2] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018 at Women in Red

Hello again from Women in Red!


July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock
Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed!


Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal Barnstar

The Surreal Barnstar
to GorillaWarfare, for resurrecting the incel article....4 archive pages and 1500 edits later and still going. I can't keep track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you... I think :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fubcgy

Per Cluebot and your reverts, I think Fubcgy is WP:NOTHERE. Already reported at WP:AIV. I'd link the diffs but I think you rev del'd them. --Policy Reformer(c) 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I've blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herve Jaubert

Regarding your comment that I made changes that are unsubstatiated to the article. I disagree with this statement. The literature list(books he wrote) clearly shows that every statement I made is true and is substantiated as per this literature list. That the literature list, which I also posted can be verified the ISBN, which I also posted. Therefore I strongly disagree with your assessment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:D1E7:9CB9:DC3C:4B03 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our reliable sourcing and biographies of living people policies. In order to claim that someone's writings are Islamophobic on Wikipedia, it is not sufficient to read the writings and come to that conclusion yourself. You need reliable sources independent of the subject that are making that assessment, and because this is a negative statement about a living person, those sources need to be quite strong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree the reliable source is the both the title of the books and the content. A title "Sex misery of muslims and violence" cannot be interpreted as anything else but islamophobic and I think it is shameful that wikipedia has become a hotbed of islamophobia by not acknowledging facts when it is convenient for islamophobes. This in my opinion very strongly contradicts the neutral viewpoint guidlines not what I did.

Sincerely

Please read the policy I linked -- it will explain how that is not sufficient for sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even after reading this I disagree with your assessment. There is nothing in that article that in any way seems to suggest what you say.
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not interpretative claim no analysis nor a synthetic claim. It is merely a restatement of some of the book titles. I am sorry to say that
It is absolutely an interpretative claim. If Jaubert's writings are blatantly Islamophobic as you claim (I am not familiar with this person and so have no idea if they are or are not), it should be no issue to find and cite an independent reliable source describing them as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refer this case to a higher authority on wikipedia. There is no proper sense in this discussion. Thank you
You can bring this up at Talk:Herve Jaubert or the biographies of living people noticeboard if you'd like input from other people; you might have more luck at the noticeboard since it seems the article talk page has not been edited since 2011. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a case and also mentioned that it was you and for what reasons you made your assessment as well as mentioning why I disagree.
I see it—thank you for letting me know! I'll follow along. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even read what you revert?

That was a non-disambig link to James Foley the journalist. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies -- I think I must have clicked the wrong button while using an automated tool. I'll remove the warning on your talk page; thank you for letting me know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panchen Lama

Dear GorillaWarfare Hi there, this is my very first edit on wiki, so my apologies if I am doing anything wrong. I am hoping this is sending you a note.

Yesterday I stumbled upon many inaccuracies in the page on the Tibetan Panchen Lama, (next in hierarchy to the Dalai Lama).

I was a little shocked that wiki was missing all the most important, recent and relevant information on the Panchen Lama and had no evidence presented. So, I was inspired for the first time to make a wiki edit (and apologies, I had a little difficulty adding all the references).

So, I added a section on his disappearance. This has been deleted, twice! It was erroneously thought to be my personal opinion. Rather, it is factually accurate, and evidence is in multiple places including the Formal UK Parliamentary record, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, The UK secretary of state has raised it formally with the Chinese authorities, and The UN has a special rapporteur assigned to it to urge the Chinese authorities to release him or information on him.

To be honest I was a bit shocked to see that wiki would shut down something like this down when it is reasonably common knowledge, and across parliaments, and say it was personal opinion???

Across the world the only people who would pretend the Panchen Lama's abduction didn't happen, or is a matter of 'controversy' are those in China (or working closely with China) who believe the Chinese authorities view of what happened. I would much prefer to get my human rights information on china from The United Nations, the UK government or the US Government, or even in this case from the Dalai Lama himself!

I add some refs below, but sadly, after all these deletions and changes I now have insufficient time to rewrite it and hyperlink the refs.

I would be delighted if you wish to forward this to Wiki Lawyers or wiki human rights experts to decide. I can write it in a more referenced manner if it wont then be deleted Obviously there are thousands of articles in the newspapers, magazines and online about the kidnapping, but (as a scientist) referencing a newspaper, TV programme or book is not the high level of evidence I require- so I started with the UN and parliamentary papers for you. Many thanks

REFS - there are many more

Mark Field Minister of State UK said We raised the case of the Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, at the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue which took place in Beijing on 27 June 2017. We called on the Chinese authorities to release evidence to reassure the international community of his current status and wellbeing. We urge China to ensure that the restrictions on the Panchen Lama's freedom of movement and communication are lifted, so that he may select the career, education or religious life of his choosing. We continue to support calls by the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief for the Chinese authorities to facilitate a meeting between the Panchen Lama and independent international observers.

MORE https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-05-16.144942.h

http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases-statements/open-letter-uscirf-commissioner-tenzin-dorjee-the-panchen-lama

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998-07-28/debates/e66de5f5-df2a-464f-b897-5d270f17c175/PanchenLama

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2000-03-14/debates/64dceb66-e5de-4b2f-a434-01ecde0e544a/PanchenLama

Many thanks Warm wishes Dr Penny Fidler Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Ps - again my apologies if I am sending this through the wrong channels, I could not see how else to contact you Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Penny Fidler: Yep, this is the correct way to contact me! There are two issues with your additions—although you have included inline citations for some of the claims, not all of them are cited (including a direct quote, and characterizations of the Chinese authorities' intentions like "By taking away the rightful Panchen Lama, the Chinese authorities hope that in the future they will prevent the Tibetans from selecting their successor to the Dalai Lama when that time comes.") These very much need to be cited in order to be included. The second issue is that the text does not fit a lot of Wikipedia's style guidelines and neutral point of view requirements. For example, "In some places you will, however, see The Chinese authorities and others portraying this as a 'controversy' to create the impression that there were two options." uses the second person, and uses scare quotes around "controversy". You might benefit from reading WP:TONE, which describes more thoroughly the tone we try to achieve. I hope this is helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many I ask if it was the Chinese expert who deleted my first edits, who then alerted you to what I had written?

So how does this work? There is a page on the Panchen Lama, that contains no accurate information on the Panchen Lama. I write a whole page twice and it gets deleted. Does this keep happening - keeping the status quo? when the entire evidence is missing? clearly where there are human rights issues at stake, there will be differences of opinion from the perpetrating nation . Though most people would take the UN view. The reason I ask is this has taken 4 hours so far to make sure it was all accurate, and I have a day job! I can write in style guidelines.

however, It is not accurate, nor evidence based to call it a controversy. That is the same tactic as the tobacco lobby in the past saying there is a controversy over whether tobacco caused cancer or not, sowing reasonable doubt. For 23 years there has been universal agreement on why the Panchen lama was taken, so I can find a ref for that - but it would be a book or newpaper or article if that's what you need. Many thanks, grateful for how I can successfully change this page in one go, so others can add their evidence. There is much of it Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Penny Fidler: No one alerted me to the edit; I was using a tool that allows me to quickly review recent changes to Wikipedia articles and check them for potential issues. As to whether BabelStone is a Chinese expert or not, I'm not sure—I don't believe we've worked together. One thing to note, though, is that Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, regardless of whether they're an expert or even particularly familiar with the subject. For that reason, even things that are common sense to people who are familiar with the subject (for example, the universal agreement on why the Panchen Lama was taken that you mention above) should be cited so that people who are just learning about the topic can verify that that's the case by clicking through to the sources (or finding a book that's mentioned, etc.) To use your tobacco company example, there is a plentiful collection of sources that discuss tobacco as a carcinogen (and the tobacco industry's attempts to cast doubt on that), and that tactic itself and its inaccuracy is discussed in Wikipedia articles. The same should happen for the Panchen Lama article.
One thing I should point out, in case you're not aware, is that edits are rarely completely deleted from Wikipedia pages—you can view the page history to retrieve the content that you added before and avoid having to rewrite anything from scratch.
Thank you for your willingness to learn the intricacies of how we edit topics like this on Wikipedia; I know it's frustrating to have your hard work undone so I appreciate you sticking with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, that is very reassuring that style guidelines are the reason it has been taken down other. I was one of the early users of wikis 20 odd years ago and like the format. I suspect I wont have time to do it again, and to learn how to add all the refs, and am nervous the whole, rather than part, will be removed again. I worry that the person with most spare time will prevail on contentious issues. Perhaps I can ask someone with more time than me to continue. Thank you anyway for your advice and words. Penny Dr Penny Fidler (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand time is a limited resource. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, GorillaWarfare. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 07:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_14&oldid=1212133387"