Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:GorillaWarfare

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 11 September 2022 (relocate to proper spot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Lead length

Hello GW! I saw your comment on lead length. What’s ideal? I don’t know myself. Too new here. I looked up most-popular Youtubers and they have long leads. tysm DixieFireFigher557 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADLENGTH is the guidance on lead length in general, though my concerns were not that the lead was too long. Leads are meant to summarize the most important details about a subject, and trivia like Stephen Colbert joking about Paffrath is not leadworthy; nor are play-by-plays of debates. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enel X logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Enel X logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cooking for Dads logo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cooking for Dads logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dark web

Hi! Just in case you may be interested: this article probably need corrections, looks very skewed to the right. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'll have the time or energy soon to look into it, so I'd recommend bringing any specific concerns to the talk page or WP:NPOVN. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrio

Help me out here. I was looking for an actual birthdate for Tarrio, rather than the existing date range based on mentions of his age in a number of different stories. That's when I found his Federal Bureau of Prisons entry from his prior offense. It had his year of birth, 1984. That would have been verified by documentation. That corresponded consistently with other ages that I'd found at different times. It also had his legal name as Henry, with "Enrique" being used by the subject as a preferred nickname and his chronological age. I found another mention of that former name as accurate. As I looked further, I found an actual birth date, rather than just a year, and it was consistent with other mentions, over a number of stories. One thing I did find as odd was that the FBOP name also had his ethnicity as "white," rather than "Afro-Cuban," which he prefers but doesn't exist in their system, or black. I don't know if his skin color reflects a deep tan, and/or is artificially darkened through chemicals. Biological siblings can have widely varying skin colors, of course, such as in the Healy family, where some siblings were clearly African-American, but others "passed" for white, so much so that some were not recognized as mixed-ethnicity until long after their deaths. One had been the president of Georgetown University, in the 19th Century, when the institution was still segregated. I am also thinking of Rachel Dolezal, who eventually admitted that she was not actually African-American as her parents had previously confirmed. So then I found the actual Tarrio birthdate at the Buzzfeed site. That is not a deprecated source. So I'm not sure why the article should revert to the range, rather than the actual date. I have no reason to believe that is not accurate. Thanks! Activist (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: WP:BLPPRIMARY states, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
The source you are describing as BuzzFeed is not BuzzFeed News, which is listed as a reliable source as RSP. It's some site called edailybuzz.com, which appears to be some sort of gossip site, not a reliable source. The comments about his race are also not usable for any modifications to the article, which has statements about his race and heritage sourced to reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've covered that rather thoroughly. I apologize for mistaking "edailybuzz" for BuzzFeed News. I do wonder why public records (in this case derived from court records) are not considered reliable, but newspaper sources would be? I followed the case of the family found dead on the California hiking trail a few weeks ago and numerous "reliable" news sources, including the Washington Post, had the wrong first name for the dad. Activist (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's less to do with reliability and more to do with privacy concerns. Some people prefer not to have their specific dates of birth, birth names, addresses, etc. made public, but have little choice in the matter when it comes to public records like prisoner records. If a person also discloses this information publicly themself, or if secondary reliable sources determine these details are reliable and printworthy, it's another story, but we don't include private information like this in Wikipedia (which is far more widely-read than prison records databases) otherwise. Tarrio's general age is widely known and supported by many reliable sources, as you've observed, but it seems he keeps his specific DoB somewhat private. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Actual play

On 9 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Actual play, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that actual play shows have helped to improve the representation of women, people of color, and LGBT people in tabletop gaming? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Actual play. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Actual play), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

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.— Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can I ask you a question?? Lostfan333 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Lostfan333, don't ask to ask, just ask :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this twice to two other people who never responded back, and I'm Gay and you're Queer so I trust you. A while back, my user page had a small square at the bottom saying "other users who are Gay, other users who have seen Lost," and before I knew it and before I could check it out, that box was gone. Any idea how that box works?? Lostfan333 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the categories at the bottom of the page? I see the categories Category:Gay Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who like Lost (TV series) at the bottom of your userpage, and if you click on those you will see other Wikipedians who have put themselves in that category (often by adding userboxes, though they can be manually added also). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. Yeah, I used to be able to see those but I can't anymore. Thanks anyways. I appreciate it. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange, I don't know what would cause you to suddenly not be able to see page categories. Perhaps someone at WP:VPT could help you more than I can on that front. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skin change? Categories show up in different places depending on the user's skin. Jorm (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real name username opinion?

On Wikipedia talk:Username policy, there is an RfC about how strongly we should encourage new users to use a username other than their real names - the argument for which is that it would protect users from harassment. I thought of the most prominent Wikipedia harassment cases I knew of, and all three were of women who did not use their real names as their usernames, so that didn't seem to correlate very well. And, well, you're one of them, and the other two are unavailable. Unless I'm wrong, you started with a pseudonym, but are now using your real name intentionally? But Wugapodes makes a convincing argument that I'm blinding myself with my male privilege, so I'm tempted to strike my opinion. Wanna read the discussion and weigh in? For obvious reasons, I'd value your words on this more than his, or my own, honestly. --GRuban (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. You're correct that when I started editing Wikipedia I used a pseudonym. I didn't exactly choose to become this public about who I am in real life—I was doxed about ten years ago now, and ultimately decided there was no putting that cat back in the bag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little surprised by your comment there. I registered this account under my real name a long time ago, but it was actually your user page that convinced me to be fully open about my real-life identity, e.g. linking to other profiles and adding a photo, given that I know you work in much riskier areas and you've experienced a hundred times worse harassment because of Wikipedia than I have. If you don't mind me asking, is it a case of making the best of a bad situation for you? Would you advise new users to try to remain completely anonymous? – Joe (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: It's difficult for me to say whether I might have eventually chosen to connect my Wikipedia account to my real life identity, had the choice been left entirely up to me. I might well have—there are some things I very much enjoy about being public about who I am, and in some ways I am actually glad that I have been public with my identity as long as I have (though, obviously, not glad about what led to it). But anonymity served me well for a while, and I can confidently say I would've remained anonymous for longer if it had been entirely up to me.
It was scary having my identity revealed when it was. I was a freshman in college, people knew where I lived, and I knew that my actions on-wiki could very easily impact my entire future career, which had not even begun yet. It's easier now than it was then, for a handful of reasons: I have a stable job with an employer who is remarkably understanding about the weirdness they sometimes encounter as a result of employing me, for example. But for a long time I avoided editing in the topic areas I do now (American politics, online extremism, gender and sexuality, etc.) because I knew it could have very real, negative effects. It still can (and has, I'm sure), but I am in a much better place to bear those. And there are still things that I have to think about as a result of it that probably never cross the mind of many people who are not in my position: "can something in the background of a photo I posted to Twitter be used to triangulate my location?" "is there a chance that if I mention my partner's name in a casual conversation with colleagues on Slack, someone I work with might divulge that information to those on the Internet who would like to know?" "do I need to ask this friend not to tag me in a photo in case someone targets her for harassment knowing she knows me?"
Regarding the recommendation for new users: yes, I would recommend they remain anonymous, at least at first. I suspect few (if any) longterm members of this community can confidently say that they knew exactly the areas of the project in which they'd be active at the moment they signed up, or that they understood the very specific risks associated with being an active Wikipedian (with or without a known identity). It is easy to decide later and with a full understanding of these things that you would like to become public about who you are in real life; certainly easier than trying to take back the decision to use your real name as a username. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jacob Wohl

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacob Wohl you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 2601:246:4502:1B40:7525:549E:45E5:3BEB

Claiming that all the WW2 veterans will be dead in a decade is not intelligent.

I called it "the R word" because I felt that it was unintelligent in the extreme and I thought that was a good way to express this observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4502:1B40:7525:549E:45E5:3BEB (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't. Please review WP:CIVIL. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 76 years since the end of WWII. Combat veterans would have mostly been 20 to 30 years old at that time. Making them in their late 90s at best at this time. Even now there are relatively few of them left alive and few of them can expect to live another decade. --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GorillaWarfare, I am the one who did those invisible comments on My Magic Pet Morphle about my fan made PAW Patrol original characters

And I'm sorry. It's just that I regretted contributing (a bit) to the article due to my intense and undying hatred of My Magic Pet Morphle. So I decided to vandalize the page as revenge for its existence (and my few good contributions). Even though I am the IP address that vandalises the article a lot, I have actually contributed a few times. I added the image, which I spotted on Wikimedia Commons one day before the article was even on Wikipedia. I created the characters section (even though I deliberately did not add the correct info in it) and improved the infobox a bit. I just want you to know that I am very, very sorry, and I will never do it again. The IP address is shared, and sometimes I am accused of doing edits that I never did. Sometimes I wish I could edit as a registered user. 63.143.116.135 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Georget2004

Hi GorillaWarfare, a fellow software developer here. I recently added a paragraph into metoo page in the criticism section. The paragraph mentioned the two controversial cases of governor Cuomo and Tara Reade. In both of those cases it was well documented with references to mainstream media sources that metoo movement was not proactive about those cases. I still don't understand why that section was removed as it was in the proper criticism section and had enough references to the proper news sources. I honestly saddened that even Wikipedia has plunged into censorship as my logical mind cannot interpret your action any different... Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georget2004 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georget2004: I reverted your edit because it was poorly sourced, including to an opinion piece and to several questionably reliable publications. Our neutral point of view policy requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis mine). It doesn't mean reporting any and all views, regardless of prominence or source quality.
I also note that you have added this content several times before (Special:Contributions/Georget2004) and have been reverted by several editors who have concerns about the neutrality/weight you are giving this information:
You need to discuss your suggested additions on the talk page, rather than just repeatedly warring it into the page. See WP:BRD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, if you think any of my statements are false and if you think Guardian is not a reliable source then unfortunately for me wikipedia died today. So sad. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georget2004 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Boodlesthecat

Hi Gorilla Warfare,

Needless to say, I feel ny short "block" is arbitrary and unfair. But it's short. For the moment, let me copy to you what I wrote to another admin, Deepfriedokra with regard to their comment, since it's pertinent. Mind you, this is only the tip of the iceberg in what I feel is an issue of POV editing and edit warring being carried out by editors -- most prominently, but not exclusively, the editor who brought what I feel was a retaliatory, harassing complaint against me simply for disagreeing with her (who is also the originator of the article and is having some apparent WP:OWN issues) -- with an ideological bent trying to alter clear, pertinent, sourced facts to fit their viewpoint. My comment to Deepfriedokra below. thanks!

Hello,

In your comment at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussionBoodlesthecat, you wrote I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both

I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts.

My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in the talk page, was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be. Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia?

Similar, ideological/personal biases of other editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand how this is pertinent to the edit warring block, but generally speaking I would encourage you to leave any responses to AE comments at WP:AE so that other admins can see them, rather than hoping they happen to see you've left a comment on a userpage somewhere. I have left a longer comment about the pblock on your userpage, beneath the unblock request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow ;->

The missing cat surfaces: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1437807949192237056?s=20

Dune: worth watching for its depiction of battlefield atomics. Citation 2 of the Global Ceasefire page now contains a reference to what we were facing last year. Next time round. I'll still be here then: I hope you will, too. Johncdraper (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal on Boodlesthecat sanction

Hi, I can't quite follow all the ins and out of the process, but I know I'm supposed to alert you to an appeal filed here.

No doubt I've made errors in filing, these things can get tedious to me form physical reasons. Let me know if there's anything else to do. Regards, BTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boodlesthecat: I've added a link to the original discussion and pinged the other admins who commented. Besides that it looks roughly good to go. Just be sure to sign any comments you make with four tildes (~~~~) or using one of the other methods explained in more detail at WP:~. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help fixing some ref-styles... If possible.

Was looking at Project Veritas because of an edit request that popped up on the talkpage.
It seems to me that some of the footnotes/references should be listed out instead of referring to the citation/reference numbers only. For instance, take a look at Ref 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 36, 40, 56, 69, and 229 where the references are listed out as a bunch of numbers such as [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] so the reader has to then click on the linked number to see what reference the number belongs to... which, as the edit request did basically point out (however POV their request might have been) casual readers won't always understand.
Now, the case could certainly be made that this is all citation overkill but since this article is always a sizzling minefield, I personally would be loath to remove almost any reliable reference, especially, as in the case of Ref 14, where all those cited sources are for the term "disinformation"... So. I have been poring over Wikipedia Help pages going down the WP-rabbit hole of not always helpful templates etc in search of how to convert these long strings of visually-nonsensical ref numbers into at least some kind of informational list, such as (somewhat) the appearance of Ref 382 at Thomas Jefferson (barring of course all those poor/awful CITEREFs...)
Can you point me to any example articles where the internal coding would work for PV? If I can see an example with actual code then I can learn how to do it myself...lol, like a toddler saying "Me do! Me do!" I'll learn how to do if I actually do *do* it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Yeah for sure, that style that you point to in the Thomas Jefferson article has become my preferred method as well for the reasons you mention, though it does have downsides (you can't avoid duplicating individual references that are reused elsewhere). All you really have to do is create a bulleted list of the citations (removing the <ref> and </ref> around each cite) and then wrap that whole thing in ref tags, like so:
Article text that you want to support with a bunch of sources.<ref>
 * {{cite web|...}}
 * {{cite book|...}}
 * {{cite news| ...}}
</ref>
I often use list-defined references for this since the reference itself can get pretty enormous and in the way of those who edit in source-mode, but you can do it either way.
A good example of an article using this style is QAnon, which uses both list-defined refs and ones defined inline. See the source of the references section.
Give a shout if you run into trouble and I can do the formatting for you, as well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it, I *might* have originally done the Jefferson list-referencing but I tend to leave that article alone these days...too many supervisors lol. I'll take a look at QAnon, thanks for mentioning it. I'll let you know if I start to go down in in referencing-flames... Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've done it. I think I took care of all the issues that kept popping up (Cite errors here, cite errors there! - what a BEAR of teasing out all the refs...) but please look it over for anything I might have missed. I will take a break for now. I had been thinking about maybe converting the other citation-stuffed lines to the list-form but have since realized that would make the ref section realllllly long... It might be best to leave them as is but keep the Disinformation definition/sourcing since that seems to engender much ongoing controversy. Thanks for all your help, Shearonink (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at some of the usual suspects in terms of "trigger words" that people tend to fuss over. I think Video manipulation (Ref 15) and far-right (Ref 29) will both need the list-ref style I incorporated for "Disinformation". If there are too many entries in the list, they can be pruned down later but I understand, in this case, the need to list out so many refs for the terms used by reliable sources to describe PV. Shearonink (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian refugee crisis

Hello, good morning, as there is still no article on the "Haitian migratory crisis in the United States" I would like you to update this article that deals with the history of the Haitian refugee crisis thanks Street trek (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lim

Hey Gorilla Warfare! I noticed you took down the picture that I added for Nicholas Lim that I found on his public facing social media profile. I am new to editing, but am looking to help add more various pages that I come across when clicking the "random article" button. That page on Nick looks like a biography of a living person, and could use a picture. There were pictures also I noticed of Lim on the articles that are cited throughout the article. How can we use one of those, or is there a way that we can that is not a copyright violation! Thanks, and sorry if I am getting things wrong. I am a very new editor! Th78blue (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome Th78blue! Wikipedia has quite strict rules around which photos we can use, and we can't just pull images from various social media sites. Images have to be released under a free license in order to be used on Wikipedia, meaning you either need to take a photograph yourself and release it, or find a photo where the photographer has done so. You can read a little more here: Commons:First steps.
Because of this, it means that a lot of biographies don't have images, even though you might see that images of the person exist if you Google for them. That's because the images that are out there aren't freely licensed. From what I can tell, that's the case with Nick Lim (see this Google search, filtered to only show CC-licensed images). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does! Thanks Th78blue (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC) I am now going to copy and past this to my talk page for my own reference and delete here.[reply]

@Th78blue: You might also want to check out WP:TPNEW for some quick info about talk pages -- it's best to start a new section or continue a section you already started, rather than add to some other section on a person's talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Project Veritas issue

Please see my latest edit there. It is obvious the book being cited let some typos slipped by, I couldn't figure out how to cite the actual quote from the Washington Post article because it would have ended up with a doubly-nested reference - so placed a hidden comment pointing to the source for the exact quote. Shearonink (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I would advise against using a hidden comment for this note, as it's completely unavailable to readers. Doubly-nested references certainly aren't ideal, but they're better than requiring someone to go into the article source to see the note, in my view. WP:Readers first. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, I did it as kind of a stop-gap...frankly, PV's references are not quick/easy/simple to deal with, to fix, or to adjust. I had to figure out a way to get the real info into the article without letting it slip away. And this is the thing...it's not just doubly-nested, it's a list-defined reference that I and at least one other Wikipedia editor have found an error with the text being quoted so the issue then becomes, within a list-defined reference...citing the Julia Cagé book's statement along with its "sics" and then also citing the actual Washington Post article to prove the actual WaPo/O'Harrow article quote is verifiable and it said what it actually said and not what the Julia Cagé book erroneously states. A Notes section could possible work - to lay out the error in the book's statement - but then that could open up a whole 'nother venue for commentary on the article's subject. Which would probably be Not Good. I was going to give it a go but, just now, looking at Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes#5. List-defined references] & phabricator... it looks impossible to nest references within a list-defined reference... is it impossible? I'm not sure but it looks like #tag wouldn't work either... Shearonink (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) with Nested footnotes within a list-defined reference...are they possible?. Maybe some of the Wiki-TechWizards can advise me on if "double referencing" in this situation is doable. Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nesting a reference for the 2 "sic"s doesn't look possible per this. Any ideas on how to best proceed? Shearonink (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: Can you define the reference inline rather than list-defining it? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's possible. Heh and I know I can but... remembering the "how" is proving to be an issue - since constructing listed references, inline or not, is not an everyday occurrence for me. Also, I've been trying to look up how to list the references out inline so the appearance is like the list-defined reference but finding clear instructions and/or examples around here is not at all intuitive. You got any article examples I can look at to lift the code and the How? Thx, Shearonink (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the reference (everything including the ref tags) from within the {{reflist|refs= section, and place it after the text that you wish to cite. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is what I could come up with. It works but of necessity I had to lose a separate reference/cite that contained the O'Harrow quote. Is there any way you can see to cite the actual O'Harrow/Washington Post quoted phrase within the Julia Cagé cite? I have been poring over all the various nested references pages here in Wikipedia but the only way I see to nest it is to create a Notes section with a "refn" etc. Am I wrong on that? The only reason I want to cite the sic's is because this article has to be so scrupulously sourced. The published words of Cagé et al in this particular instance were and are wrong, they are misquoting a reliable source...it seems important to mention but without creating a Notes section that does seem impossible... If only the phabricator/#tag problem had been fixed...shame that #tag used to work and now it doesn't.
And thanks for all your patience on this btw. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
YAY. Thank you. I see you had to go with a Notes section, but that couldn't be avoided. The only possible issue I see is that in the reference listing the first asterisk is starred instead of being a dot and is sitting up next to the 3 and its little a,b. Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, fixed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now I can use this final version as a template when I run into another similar issue... I really did try to figure out how to do it but one thing is the Help and Template pages aren't always the most transparent or accessible to luddites like me and secondly, seeing this example and coding some (ok, a very little *some* I agree...) of this along the way is one of the top Teach-em moments I have experienced around Wikipedia. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jacob Wohl

The article Jacob Wohl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacob Wohl for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report a COI

Hello Molly, I was wondering which admin should I contact to report an extensive COI case that requires outing? I contacted at least two and none responded which is weird since I've had no issues with that before. Thanks! --Loganmac (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loganmac: See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing. You'll probably want the functionaries. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, yeah I was aware of the outing policy, thanks for your help! --Loganmac (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating an article on the NCIRS!

I was planning on creating that article myself, but never got the motivation to do so. Here are some sources about the NCIRS that I gathered that could help further improve the article.[1][2][3][4] X-Editor (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Maybe put them on the article talk page? Not sure when I'll have a minute to get back to it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I pinged you on the talk page and left the sources there as well. X-Editor (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mersenne prime

@Fowler&fowler:, :@JayBeeEll:, :@Eviolite: I disagree with moving the table of known Mersenne primes to a new article. I think the table should stay in the Mersenne prime article, because it is easier to read information in one location instead of jumping back and forth. Best regards Szelma W (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Szelma W: I am not sure why you have posted this at three different talk pages, including at an uninvolved user's talk. Please discuss at Talk:Mersenne prime. eviolite (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Issues

Hello, I am having some issues editing a page for a pop idol I am a fan of, Josh Beauchamp. I follow him and his work for two years and after noticing some mistakes and important information left out in his page, I decided to edit. However, everytime I do it gets removed even when I add sources. Now the page is protected and no longer available to edit. I just want to make people know more about my idol. Hope you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anystaken (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:Citing sources. Any changes need to be properly sourced, and this is not the place to promote your idol. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How can I create an article on wikipoidia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B10A:9BD6:1B0D:1662:FAEA:8C2C (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:GettingStarted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

DYK for National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance

On 30 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1997 whooping cough outbreak in part led to the establishment of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jacob Wohl

On 30 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacob Wohl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jacob Wohl was banned for life by the National Futures Association when he was only 19 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Wohl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jacob Wohl), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

Happy Halloween!
Hello GorillaWarfare:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
...for wading thru the sludge on incel...a better person than me :/ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cute and FAC

Hey. First off, I haven't looked at your userpage in a while - Atlas is beautiful. What breed? Looks just like my own hound when she was about three months, right down to the 'just walked in white paint' toes! Amazing.

Second, Talk:Incel popped up on my watchlist, with talk of FAC in the offing. That's quite an undertaking - feel free to ping me when it's up for review, I'd be interested to go through it. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 01:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! He's a good deal bigger than when that photo was taken almost nine months ago—here's a more recent one. His sibling had one of those doggy DNA tests done and they are mostly pit bull, husky, and german shepherd.
Thanks for the note about Incel! I have some more work I want to do on it before nominating it, but I've been thinking about putting it up for FA review for a while and now that I've let it slip I suppose I have to :) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pit bull, husky and german shepherd eh? Funny how similar they all look when they're puppies - Fleet's a whippet! They must be similar ages, she had her first birthday last month. Looking forward to reviewing at the article when it's good and ready. Girth Summit (blether) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very close! Atlas turns one later this month. Fixed the link to the picture above, I had the wrong one in my clipboard. Thanks for offering to review, I'll definitely give you a ping! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cher Scarlett

On 6 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cher Scarlett, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cher Scarlett is one of the leaders of #AppleToo, a workers' rights movement at Apple Inc.? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cher Scarlett. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cher Scarlett), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Reverse search warrant

On 9 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reverse search warrant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some lawyers and privacy experts have questioned the constitutionality of reverse search warrants in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Reverse search warrant. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Reverse search warrant), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Star Hook update
Your hook reached 14,141 views (589.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Corsi-Rosenthal Box

On 13 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Corsi-Rosenthal Box, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Corsi-Rosenthal Box (example pictured) is a homemade air purifier that was designed during the COVID-19 pandemic as an alternative to more expensive air purification systems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Corsi-Rosenthal Box. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Corsi-Rosenthal Box), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN and stuff...

See, for me, the audited processes really highlight the collaborative nature of the place - DYK to a degree but moreso GAN and FAC. GAN is good, one goes in with an attitude of, "How can this article be better?" - the main thing is that it is comprensive, readable in accessible English, not copyvio and sourced with reliable sources and image licencing is ok. Choosing a fairly narrow article is good (makes comprehensiveness easy to check) and an experienced article/GAN writer and away one goes...villages...films...buildings... etc.... are easy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-ew-soft brainstorming

Hi Molly! Following up from your Twitch livestream, I drafted Template:Uw-ew-soft as a rough start for a less harsh edit warring message. It was a little hard to strike the right tone, but hopefully with some further tweaks it can be developed into something deployable on Twinkle. Feel free to make changes or let me know if you have thoughts! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Hello GW. I hope you are well. If you are still on wiki 213.142.96.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) needs their talk page access removed. If you've logged off hopefully will have taken care of this. Have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Another admin removed it already. Thanks for the ping! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep the ever reliable Ponyo zapped them. My typing is getting slower all the time :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance?

If you find some of that precious free time I keep hearing about, your thoughts might be useful at Jameela Jamil. I would mainly love a personal check as to whether my own concerns are way off base (100% possible). If you don't have the time or the inclination, I more than understand. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look if I get a minute, though with the US holidays coming up this week I may be a bit too busy. I've skimmed the discussion and wonder if a BLPN discussion might be warranted. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, and understood. I lived most of my life in the states, but since I moved to the land of moose and maple syrup, I tend to forget the U.S. holiday schedules. Also, Bilorv left a brief note at BLPN which is how I found the article, but it has had no real pickup. Thanks for the answer, and Happy Thanksgiving! Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! So you can spend more time enjoying your Thanksgiving pie, I've added stub sections on the Sines v Kessler case to Andrew Anglin, Michael Hill (activist), and Jason Kessler. I'm also going to try and add stubs to Elliot Kline and Mike Enoch, and add some more info to the existing subsection on Matthew Heimbach.

Hope this helps! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the text to Elliot Kline now, adapting some of what you used on Christopher Cantwell. Unfortunately I'm now too tired to add the text to Enoch and Heimbach, but I'll get to that tomorrow if some other editor doesn't get to it overnight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're awesome! Pie's in the oven so I'll see about finishing the swing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

List of best-selling manga (someone changes it even though sources say opposite)

Hello I read both Naruto & Detective Conan sources in the list. Naruto Shueisha/Mangaplus (official publisher) source says it has sold 250 million copies, Detective Conan one says "it has 250 million copies in circulation worldwide (including copies not sold)" Naruto should be above as of now. But User:Yujoong changing the order. He first removed Mangaplus/Shueisha source (most reliable source) Now both User:Yujoong and Creating User:Cosmo Sentinel changing the order everyday as they want. Can you prevent or warn them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderhymer (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest raising your concerns at Talk:List of best-selling manga. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Haskins

Hi GorillaWarfare (or Molly, which ever you'd prefer)! I noticed you were recently online when I checked my watchlist just now and saw your DYK nomination, and I'd like to ask a favor. The above article is undergoing a severe vandalism spree — it's already at RFPP, but I feel this is a fairly urgent case because of the sheer volume of vandalism over the past hour or so (I've made over 20 reverts during that time). Could you please semi-protect it? Thank you for your consideration, Dylan620 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for reaching out. I'll go clear RfPP too. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! As a token of gratitude, I'm reviewing your DYK nom now. --Dylan620 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Talk:Roblox

Infinite semi-protection of a talk page that's likely to get younger editors engaged seems like a non-ideal way forward. There certainly have been problems on the page, and without semi-protection, there probably always will be some. But I'd urge you to consider dropping it to 30 days or so. The issues have been slow and mostly not horrible. Hobit (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: The page was already indefinitely move-protected, which I think may be what you're seeing. The edit protection is only until December 4 (one week). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you are 100% right. Sorry about that. I should know better than to edit before the sun comes up... Hobit (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I read too quickly and mistake move protection duration for edit protection duration pretty frequently too. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gorilla

Appreciate your service at the MeWe page. With regard to the disingenuous assertions in the Talk, there, it perhaps might be good for you to invite others to join you in moderating the edit requests there—not for reasons of any true bias, but just so that other's names appear with yours, doing that work (for sake of appearances). Emphasizing we are a community is, at its heart, a good thing. And sometimes, appearance of being unbiased is as important to a WP-naive audience as the reality itself. Cheers. An academic. 2601:246:C700:558:B1DB:6500:4813:ACF0 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel and oversight

Should I try reaching out to an admin for edits like those I just reported, or is emailing OS fine even if it ends up being revdel rather than os? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Totally fine to email OS if you don't have an admin handy. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few admins I can reach out to, but I find that is quicker and more reliable to email oversight. I don't always know which of the admins I'm on familiar terms with are active. I just didn't want to be a pest with emailing OS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sebold

Congratulations on your additions to Alice Sebold. You have made a great contribution. Yaklib (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think so! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on this AfD?

Seeing as you're interested in politics, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this controversial AfD. X-Editor (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Web3 article

Hey there! See you opened up the "Web3" article - thanks! Editors had this locked down under "semantic web" for a very long time, unwilling to hear arguments that it really has little to do with that concept, good to see it out from under the grasp of Tim Bernier Lee's vast PR machine. As a heads up, the term for the technological movement is "Web 3.0", not "Web3." "Web3" is trademark of the Web3 Foundation, who run Web3 Summit in addition to many other initiatives pushing the decentralized web forward. Many people make the mistake of calling the movement "Web3" because they are familiar with the Web3 Foundation's work in the area. But the nomenclature for the movement must be "Web 3.0" to avoid this confusion.

Positioning the movement as "Web3" is very confusing and offputting for those building these technologies, so I'd please as that the article be revised to "Web 3.0" throughout. TBL/Semantic web is a very different thing, despite Tim's many attempts to "domain squat" on the "Web 3.0" term. He does not play a significant role in the tech or vision for this future.

Thanks again!

179.9.7.78 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources supporting what you're saying here? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incel article pictures

I feel like the lack of pictures makes the article feel a bit dry. Any ideas?--Trade (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. I looked around for some when it was going through GA review, and the one possibility I found (File:Incel 1.png) was, in my opinion, worse than no photos. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would the logo for The Incel Project be sufficiently relevant? I might be able to get it under a compatible license --Trade (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would probably be undue. Some articles just, because of their subject, are not easily illustrated, and I think it is better to leave them unillustrated than try to find images just for the sake of having them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Louis W. Roberts

On 14 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Louis W. Roberts, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Louis W. Roberts was among the highest ranking African-American space program staff at NASA while the Apollo program was underway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis W. Roberts. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Louis W. Roberts), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Web3 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Web3 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Holiday greetings (2021)

GorillaWarfare,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hello GorillaWarfare: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!!

Hello GorillaWarfare: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Vandalism on Trump Media & Technology Group

Hi, I am ICBP. Please block the IP that is continuously vandalising Trump Media & Technology Group, post your and my warning.ItcouldbepossibleTalk 04:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi GorillaWarfare! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

GorillaWarfare,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Do you mind replying to me?

I'm happy with the article as a whole but the presentation of some parts (and one of the sources) is somewhat poor. We can mive the discussion here if you wish since the talk page is cluttered.--Trade (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Ack, sorry about that. Saw your question but wasn't able to reply right then, and then the edit got pushed out of visible page history by other discussions. I've replied there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i'm missing something but none of the sources seems to say that Rodger was an 'self-identified incel'? --Trade (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Citations 33, 68, 4, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the attack happened years before the subreddit even existed? I'm still trying to make sense of this--Trade (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The incel subculture did not begin with r/incels, this is explained in the Wikipedia article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A WikiCookie for you!

Here's a WikiCookie! I felt like you deserved some recognition for your incredibly thorough and entertaining trek into the white paper trenches about a certain island concept. Your work is greatly valued! ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about talk page procedures

I wasn't sure where to ask this question, but you are very knowledgable about Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and have been very helpful in my learning of the platform, so I thought I'd ask you. Is it customary for user's to remove notices from their talk pages? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SquareInARoundHole A user can remove notices on their own talk page per WP:REMOVED guidelines, and worth noting if a user removes a notice, they definitely saw it then. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Thank you for your guidance. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts data

Hey GorillaWarfare, I just saw your comment in stattracker24's talk page. Originally, I was able to find the recovery data using the "released from isolation" that was updated weekly or using the active case counts. Released from isolation has not been updated since 23 June, 2021, and active case counts have not been updated since 30 June 2021. So yes, as of now the recovery data aren't available.

--Horizon Sunset (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'd pretty much given up hope on that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gridcoin

I commented on your proposal, and am curious about your thoughts about Gridcoin? I've been using BOINC for years and only recently found that Gridcoin is based on it. It struck me as something of a win-win. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gridcoin is probably one of the better of what I believe to be a universally negative concept. There is no "good" cryptocurrency, there are only ones that are less harmful, or which have positive impacts in addition to their negative ones. If we wanted to compensate people for donating their computing resources, why not just do that with real money? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One would need real money to hand out in the first place... So I've been generally skeptical about bitcoin since it came out - that it's basically a money-launderers dream come true - I like your proposal but the idea to me of using an actual deliverable, useful commodity (in this case processing time spent towards scientific problems) as a form of currency makes sense to me like how the dollar was based in silver or how M-Pesa is based in cellphone minutes. The compensation/reward/incentive is to create a new asset, not exchange one for another. Gridcoin is not accepted by WMF. I am not advocating it, I only want to be sure that it's not going to be outright blocked by an overly broad policy, if Gridcoin has any 'good' to it. I just want it to be well-considered. Victor Grigas (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The compensation/reward/incentive is to create a new asset, not exchange one for another. What is the value of Gridcoin aside from exchanging it for other assets? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None aside from bragging rights for advancing science. Maybe you misunderstand or I misunderstand, I mean that anyone using a computer could start creating it, without someone else needing to have cash-on-hand initially, it's no different than any cryptocurrency in that regard.Victor Grigas (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG

Hi there, I noticed your warning on my Talk page earlier r.e. the sharing of the Twitter details. I’ll keep what you said in mind - though what this user said about myself (including outright posting screenshots of my Wiki profile and making comments ridiculing and insulting me) and other Talk:2021 contributors (referring to us as “ignorant cunts”, among other things) on other public platforms is completely unacceptable & undermines any claim of good faith on his part (especially when he protested our reservations about his good faith on the Talk:2021 page while at the same time insinuating that we weren’t acting in good faith). I would also like to let it be known that if there’s any way at all that this can be done, I would like for any and all references (all of which were written in April, December, and today - and of which they are all of a negative, disparaging and utterly misrepresentative nature that borders on slander) to myself and my Wiki activities on his public Twitter account to be deleted immediately. In any case, I won’t share the link to his Twitter profile here again. TheScrubby (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheScrubby: Any concerns about off-wiki behavior need to be handled privately, via the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just popping in; how exactly would you set something like that up? I've found and blocked this users twitter acc right after my original post; did a casually non-descriptive recap on my twitter of these events today (no identifying information); and within an hour an a half this user posted this. (after having my profile private since my last inquiry); the repeated grudge holding this user has had agains't me has now descended to him seemingly creating another acc to view my twitter? This has gone too far; i've retired since Jan 26 and he is still mentioning me and following me to offline spaces. He continually implies bad faith to other editors and cites this behaviour due to times of him not being in the best mood on these nights; as per [5]; i can't control people's moods; so have largely stepped away from that space. I made (and admitted in the subsequent admin report) a few off jokes in April, but i came back later to offer genuine view points regarding the list, which were met with continuous bad faith accusations. The "ignorant cunts" comment on my personal twitter - never posted on here was in response to the assertion that African music recording artists have to chart to be listed on the death pages; which there isn't any charts - such this is a certified ignorant comment of how the music industry works. Cunts is admittedly flowery language said in a rant (i'm Australian); i use it describing everything because this is my personal twitter. I don't think in that circumstance it generally implies anything but frustration at the consensus leading to a very ignorant view of how international entertainment works. The initial joke was about being a socialist and reporting me to upper management because i said not listing Michelle Obama would be racist and that by definition the set in stone rules are structurally racist (as the charts line for African artists shows); i'm a socialist myself and it's just banter to me; but since the admin report; i've understood this is inappropriate for wikipedia (no disciplinary measures happened with that report). I've retired now - i just wish this user will stop following me around past blocks or bringing me up. My twitter is my diary, i will always do non-descriptive takes on my day, i will not take it private or change my name, so i understand there's no way to stop this user on Wikipedia from creating multiple accs to see it; but i hope the on-Wiki behaviour of bringing up such a twitter or mentioning me will cease. I would love a thorough look at my recent behaviour and Scrubbys if this is needed, it's time to sort this issue out. GuzzyG (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t create another account; you do realise that anybody can see your profile and tweets if they’re not logged into an account (which is the case for me most of the time anyway as I rarely ever log into and use Twitter)? As I explained on my report, the accusations of harassment are totally unfounded; I made precisely one reference to you, and that was in relation to you and Jim Michael being the only users to outright support a particular proposal on Talk:2021. My issue with you is your derogatory statements bordering on slander about myself on your public Twitter account. I don’t want anything except for you to delete any and all references to myself on your public Twitter account, of which your tweets are open for anybody to see and of which every reference towards myself (and Jim Michael and others) are of a derogatory nature. TheScrubby (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheScrubby: I clearly needed to be more specific: handled privately, via email to the Arbitration Committee. Not by a public case request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware, my apologies. As you can probably tell I’m not exactly experienced with these matters. It’s hardly an ideal situation to be in at all. TheScrubby (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have ARCA on my watchlist and if you need any encouragement I would say it's pretty much WP:COMMONSENSE to use your oversight abilities that you have here to get rid of the questionable material rather than to wait for WP:ARBCOM at this hour. There's 811 watchers at ARCA who cares if you're somewhat WP:INVOLVED do something! Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the big red warning "Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page" and I would say a possibly attempted outing in an arbcom case request is probably the one time you can IAR on this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technology predictions

You've probably already read this bit of internet lore, but icymi, thought you might get a kick out of [6]. The crypto discussion on meta made me think of it. Levivich 23:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the Newsweek author was right about some things, like computers making us feel more isolated. X-Editor (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2022 (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.Doug Weller talk 20:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsey Glasson

Hello! I recalled from some of the things you said in the WP:COIN we were both involved in that you are interested in ensuring that labor advocacy is well represented on Wikipedia. I attempted my first article with Draft:Chelsey Glasson and thought you might be interested in reviewing it. I noted your user page mentions you are quite busy with real life obligations, so hopefully this is not a bother, but I would genuinely be thankful for any input you have time to provide. I hope my editing has improved enough to be close to ready for acceptance. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SquareInARoundHole: That looks really solid! I just took a fairly superficial pass through and tagged a couple things I noticed. I won't have time to do a thorough review until this evening, but once I can do a thorough reference review I'll be happy to move it to the mainspace (assuming someone else doesn't do it before me—just saw TrangaBellam's comment). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SquareInARoundHole: Just took my thorough pass through. I tagged a few things that should be fixed, but once that's done I'm happy to move it to the mainspace. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I've gone through and believe I've addressed all of the tags, and furthermore I think I understand the sourcing requirements fully now. We can summarize secondary sources, which interpret primary sources, but for primary sources, we have to stick to verbatim quotes and facts, and avoid summarizing, so we don't interpret them by mistake. Thank you for working with me on this article. I'm incredibly proud of it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SquareInARoundHole: Yes—and it's also important to rely on secondary sources to establish weight. For example, for a legislator there might be hundreds of primary sources available as far as legislation they've introduced or spoken about, and instead of relying on Wikipedia editors to determine which ones should be included (which is WP:OR), we go to reliable sources to determine the most impactful legislation to highlight.
Great work on this article! I've moved it to mainspace at Chelsey Glasson. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: That makes sense. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get hacked?

Apologies for the message out of the blue, I know we haven't been on the friendliest of terms, but is there any chance your LinkedIn account may have gotten hacked? I noticed unusual activity today, including a friendly message to me (which is surprising but plausible) but most concerning some seemingly mean comments to other people. I struggle to make sense of it, and I apologize in advance if I have completely misinterpreted everything about this situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: That's startling to hear, and I very much appreciate you reaching out to check. I haven't used LinkedIn for several weeks so any messages or comments appearing to be from me were definitely not actually from me. I just reset my LinkedIn password and logged out any active sessions, but the only active session appeared to be my own. I also checked my messages and recent activity and everything looks like me—is it possible it's an impersonation account? Could you send me the link of the profile that messaged you? (My LinkedIn is no secret so even if it's the right address it's not an outing concern). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two LinkedIn accounts for Molly White at your place of employment. https://www.linkedin.com/in/molly-white-b1ab7a22b/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mollyawhite/ ? --GRuban (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yep, just found that as you left the message. My real account is the "mollyawhite" account (linked from my website); the other is an impersonator. If you feel like reporting the account it would be appreciated, I've just done so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it vanished! Just as I was sending it a connect request, in fact ... This being-an-admin thing is frightening. My compliments, condolences, or other nouns! --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, LinkedIn is quick on that stuff. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Ah, I suppose that would also be a possibility yes. I just ran a search a quickly found your "real" profile. The fake one is at https://www.linkedin.com/in/molly-white-b1ab7a22b/. Here's a screenshot of the communication from that account that I've seen, the message to me and the public comments, I can't know if any other private messages were sent. It would seem to be a malicious actor familiar with you, not some random bot spam, judging from the content of the communication. Sorry this happened to you, and sorry for being the bearer of the news as well. EDIT: while typing this up and screenshotting the profile page seems to have already been taken down. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gads. Well, it's clearly Wikipedia-connected. So I guess it's a sign you're doing a good job at what you're doing. --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 27
The Purple Barnstar
For suffering harassment like no one should suffer in the course of adminning. GRuban (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim: Certainly no apology needed from you, I'm grateful you let me know! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so impressed by what you have to deal with that I was considering giving you that barnstar a second time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Fong-Jones

I noted that you had red-linked to Liz Fong-Jones on another article, so I went ahead and started draft:Liz Fong-Jones. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped an image there. I have the strongest feeling of deja vu about this person; unfortunately I'm terrible at remembering people. Maybe it's just from writing Never Again pledge, but in theory I could have run across her in person a few times, years ago. In any case, it's in draft space, so hopefully this won't be considered COI issues. --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: @GRuban: The draft:Liz Fong-Jones was swiftly denied for what appears to be WP:NN. I disagree and I'm wondering if you might be able to take a look at some point. Thanks! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem odd - you've put more references on that page than there are people without masks at a Trump convention. I'm going to ask Stuartyeates what he means on his user talk page. --GRuban (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For leading the charge against the WMF's acceptance of Bitcoin, which is grossly unethical on multiple levels. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Heroes (Cryptocurrency)

Hello,

Was referred to you by @Deepfriedokra: What are your thoughts on rewriting the deleted page Regards. Mastetchi (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastetchi: I think you'll have a very hard time finding proper sourcing. Most of the coverage appears to be from crypto blogs and press releases, neither of which are suitable to establish notability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GorillaWarefare:

I already have a draft. Check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galaxy_Heroes_(Cryptocurrency)

Mastetchi (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Scarlett

I thought you'd like to know that I rewrote Cher Scarlett with all you, Teahouse, and a few others have taught me and it's been upgraded to a B! Thank you. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice work! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America First Political Action Conference

Something odd is going on here.[7]. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of edits to remove some of the unsourced changes, and remove what appears to be an attempt to turn the article into a guest list... I've also requested protection at RfPP—their 2022 event is coming up soon so I imagine the page will see more vandalism. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is probably the reason it's getting all this attention from new editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web3

Recently found your web3 website. It's pretty cool, thanks for doing it.--v/r - TP 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for saying so! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this funny

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/meet-the-crypto-bonnie-and-clyde-a-tiktok-rapper-who-calls-herself-the-crocodile-of-wall-street-and-her-husband-dutch-we-look-at-their-alleged-links-to-the-bitfinex-hack/ar-AATL9Z1

The part I found most bizzare was that the password for 4.5 BILLION dollars was stored on their unencrypted iCloud/Google Drive account. Rlink2 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive changes sone by unknown user

Hi Admin, I was scrolling through Wikipedia articles of my interest. I found that some of the users have done unconstructive edits to some of the pages like Parinamika & Arbit Choudhury. I request you to kindly block their IP address forever as they have been removing old Wikipedia pages. Thank You 2409:4053:200B:CD48:7D82:2BB9:E7C8:8C3 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Groyper cartoon.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

molly white

is this molly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.237.208 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

remove redirect from EnerNOC to Enel X

Hello, sorry, could you help me solve this redirect problem between two different companies? at this link you can find information on this problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enel_X This is the redirect that must not exist because they are two different companies https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EnerNOC&redirect=no I hope you can solve this problem because it is not the same company, it is evident! Thank you so much --79.50.173.105 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at Talk:James Shupe as a functionary please?

Hey. I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at the situation over at Talk:James Shupe with your functionary hat on. User ElisaShupe says they've sent an email to the WMF for proving their identity. Would you be able to chase this up so that we can verify if changes are needed to the article? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've also asked GeneralNotability [8]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century American activists has been nominated for deletion

Category:21st-century American activists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might need to hide?

Right after I posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Pepe, I realized it might be considered WP:OUTING. I undid my edit; should it be hidden? Sorry! Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A token of thanx from a fellow queer girl editor. :-) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 01:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "Orphan Articles" ..

Is it possible to post a completely new biography article that has no links to it besides the references ? In other words, there are no links to it because the bio is about a person who was almost completely unknown and wiki has no links to the person.

thanks much for any feedback.

vidharris --Vidharris (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, though it's not ideal (WP:ORPHAN). If the person is almost completely unknown, do they meet WP:N? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto (is)lander creeps

Speaking of Crypto, just watching Asmongold react to stuff (KiraTV, who is great!), as I do, and you got mentioned (timestamp). You famous! El_C 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now a third streamer just needs to do a reaction stream to Asmongold reacting to KiraTV reacting to Cryptoland. We need to go deeper... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good album. I've actually seen tripple react vids before, believe it or not, and they are extremely disorienting. BTW, Asmongold reaction = +300K views; KiraTV's original = 150K. There's a symmetry there that... doesn't seem real to me. Also, this is a good a time as any to promo my gal pal münecat's longform from a couple of weeks ago titled: "Web 3.0: A Libertarian Dystopia." I hope some big streamers like Asmongold or Charlie start reacting to her content more, 'cause it's great (she sings!), and at only 169K (69!) subs, highly underrated. El_C 10:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gettr screenshot 2021-07-01.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gettr screenshot 2021-07-01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you autopatrolled?

Backlog is long enough without having to check articles from people like you that are obviously fine! (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that admins aren't automatically considered to be autopatrolled... weird. Just self-assigned it to hopefully stop clogging your backlog :) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Autopatrol was removed from the administrator group as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was autopatrolled before I became an administrator so I did not need to go though the little humiliation of restoring that particular userright to myself. In my opinion, this is an example of a solution in search of a problem. Any administrator who repeatedly creates inappropriate articles should be desysopped, not just have their autopatrolled flag removed along with others by a bot. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: We like silly low-hanging fixes instead of facing our problems head on -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess that explains why I'm only just now running into this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroll granted

Hi GorillaWarfare, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! —usernamekiran (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Much like crypto... your edits are going great! Nexxl (talk)
A CAPTCHA's Worst Nightmare 19:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Jordan Armed Forces

Hi, I just want to say thank you. Also I wanna let you that GID (Jordan Intelligance) is not part of JAF, so because of that I want to delete the related section.37.220.115.237 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that was a mistaken revert! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Dove's talk: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that was a mistaken revert. Dove's talk (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_21&oldid=1109738694"