This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?
197.237.79.204 ( talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
By "well sourced", are you referring to the 3 articles linked in footnote 6? 2600:1702:1700:1700:0:0:0:3B ( talk) 02:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I suggest you to add an hyperlink to
Wikipedia:Why create an account? in the sentence « Creating an account on Wikipedia is quick, free, and does not require you to provide any personal information
» in
https://www.mollywhite.net/wikipedia-concern . You don't need to reply to this suggestion.
Visite fortuitement prolongée (
talk)
23:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way only open AFD/XFD/MFD/RFC pages I make are added to my watchlist? 4thfile4thrank ( talk) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to commend you on this edit where you changed ID to identification and gave the ironic edit summary of "unnecessary abbr", thereby using an abbreviation of "abbreviation" to explain the removal of another abbreviation. It made me chuckle as I looked through my Watchlist. BirdValiant ( talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you help mediate a dispute I am having with a user/arbitrator named Roscelese. She isn't responding to requests I am making to talk. I sent out some more request and haven't heard back. However, there hasn't been a ton of time so she still might respond but I had already requested to talk to her about it per Wiki Guidelines and she just reverted my post and made the same statement "living bio bad sources etc etc" or something like that. She doesn't say which source or why and basically changes my even handed post into to a post that is defending the person the article is about because it mischaracterizes the poster to make it say the poster was offensive to "Muslims" as though it is a fact rather than keeping it the way it was - factual/even handed where the poster is going agaisnt actual Jihadists (people with machine guns and explosive suicide vests). I think she may be upset because I misunderstood the criticism and controversy section and wrote a piece on the subject that, while well reasoned, probably was considered my own research under Wikipedia Guidelines. I left that down because I think she was probably correct (even though my own research was a well reasoned analysis of Eltahawy's actions based on sources from her own movements that she was a part of - I do admit it was suggestive of my opinion on Eltahawy which is another reason I left it down- but thought that is what the reader understands when they see 'criticism' in the title). I've asked a pro-Israel user as well if he can help mediate. I'm somewhat reticent to ask you because I'm basically helping her by including you since you do a lot of the manosphere stuff (thank you for your work on that if it is even handed- I haven't looked at all your work but I know those groups are "out there" too - like Mona Eltahawy is). Since the page is on Mona Eltahwy, which is a self described radical Islamic Feminist and the post I made had to do with her arrest over a poster against Radical Jihad (not liberal/radical Islamic feminism - and remmeber, this is Mona Eltahwy's self description), I thought having a pro-Israel mediator and someone involved with more of the feminist arena would be a good mix to have the discussion. Look forward to your response. Thanks
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 04:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I disagree that anything clear was written prior to me contacting you and if something was I didn't see it - please show it so (time stamps would help too). I disagree with the assertion that regurgitating a policy line without more is an explanation. This was the regurgitation: "You may not use unreliable sources or misrepresent sources to cast aspersions on a living person" - that's not really clear without further explanation - doesn't even say what source and how many arbitration cases on sources exist and how much reading and research do I have to do to see what is allowed? New people need to be helped by arbitrators. Not just told NO. And if you are referring to this explanation: "Undid revision 992602231 by GhostsOfGironde (talk) WP:RSP#Blaze Media -- please discuss your proposed additions on the talk page per WP:BRD, as they have been repeatedly contested and have had issues with NPOV, OR, and sourcing" it was not seen by me before contacting you as it was probably being done at the same time. I wasn't being given a real reason. What you stated was definitely more information and the knew one at least gives codes. Also, what is batman? Is that a fly by night thing? That sounds like a veiled internal canvassing attempt if it is "codeword" to others. I have no way of knowing because I am new. Do you know what "batman" means? To signal with a codeword with a new person who wouldn't know would be veiled and disingenuous. I'm trying to assum good faith but she already lied by ommission to me on our initial contact and had a Canvassing attempt (not as a new person, after at least 5 whole years of editing- if she started in 2000, then 10 years...I can't tell)
I really care about making this accurate. It bothers me a lot because it puts a lot of people in danger, including the ones that had to face the mini pogrom in May 2020 in Fairfax, Los Angeles. If speaking out against Jihad is Islamophobia, all those people are going to be in serious physical danger because they will first be in danger and then any attempt to defend themselves will be described as Islamophobia creating more aggression against them. And Wikipedia will have helped create the social atmosphere to make that happen. Thats not good for Wikipedia's future.
I would still like to mediate the content changes she made that don't have to do with "the Blaze". Are you willing to mediate that? She also used the word "WE" when speaking about liking my edits in an initial message on my talk page. She won't speak with me so I thought you might know (she might speak with me now but I kind of want to cool off for a bit with her and will go to the tlak page later), do you know who the "WE" is that she refers to? Is it Wikipedia itself?
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
She lied by ommission on our initial contact and as I said has been in trouble before. It was stonewalling pretty much. It was a revert war with multiple times and no real explanation but the boilerplates. After a time or two it should be more than that. You can see it if you really analyze the timing of her responses. What I'm saying is likely - especially with her history. What about "batman"? I will go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostsOfGironde ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'll put some proposals on there tomorrow as I need to relook at the sources. I need to cool down but thanks for agreeing to weigh in. I'll ping you when I make the proposals.
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you're correct, we were definitely both editing at the same time. Wish it was live. Anyways, cooled down a little but its really not that hyperbolic if you were there near the area. I can get you the video on the talk page. People's business were ransacked and people were accosted. The police refused to help because they had too much to handle. Synagogues and other community structures were spray painted too with disparaging remarks. It really was a lot like a Russian style pogrom in proto-form. I can explain later. And the canvassing thing - yeah a long time ago - but after so much time she should have known by then how wrong that is. So it is questionable when coupled with the lie by omission and the nature of the edits she removed. But lets stop with that - my opinion is mine - yours is your's and that's fine. I'll see you later on the talk page.
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 06:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I recently created the article for American Airlines Flight 476. However, I just checked Earwig, and I am now greatly concerned if I paraphrased the accident report too closely. Have I infringed on anyone's copyright? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 02:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I was very sad to see that you are not running again for ArbCom. I hope you decide to run again after a respite. Any particular reason? If you have answered already, please feel free to point me to your previous statement. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I love your post from Dr. Strangelove. One of my favorite movies. Kubrick is quite the artist-- many top notch films under his belt. Full Metal Jacket was just on TCM -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I actually liked the way the ArbCom resolved a recent case request. You know, the one where there was bad chemistry between the parties, problems flared up periodically, but the solution was to suspend the matter and table the case? (I was so tempted to write that in the case request, but finally decided the risk of being justifiably indefinitely blocked was too high...) -- GRuban ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, an IP editor re-added information (diff [2]) about the DHS's use of this chemical against protestors in July, which had previously been reverted by another IP editor without explanation (diff [3]). This was then reverted by User:Graywalls claiming WP:DUE (diff [4]). I restored the sentence (after copyediting and adding another source) (diff [5]) but was reverted by Graywalls and then again by JimRenge, claiming WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. There is a discussion on the talk page ( Talk:Hexachloroethane) started by the IP and continued between myself and Graywalls. My position is that they cannot simply claim there is no consensus for inclusion and insist on removing when two other editors disagree, and the sources are reliable and the news is notable. JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion. Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles. Am I mistaken that they are misinterpreting policy/guidelines and that this is not how consensus is achieved, or are they correct and the sentence should be removed until they feel consensus has been reached? Thanks, Laval ( talk) 20:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion.It looks like JimRenge has just joined the discussion. I would recommend pinging an editor on a talk page before determining that they have "not bothered" to join a discussion; they may not have the page on their watchlist or otherwise may not have realized there was a discussion happening where their input was desired.
Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles.I can't really speak to this, as I don't edit chemistry articles much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this oddity, that happened to me yesterday. Weird stuff! XOR'easter ( talk) 02:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Cats came up on the Wikimedia discord, and I thought of you. Have a kitty.
I dream of horses
(Contribs) Please
notify me after replying off my
talk page. Thank you.
08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like your advice on a wording issue on the article Q clearance, if you have time to provide it. The very bottom § See also says:
- QAnon, a conspiracy theory surrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have Q clearance
My problem with this is that it makes it seem like the Q clearance that the anonymous poster claims to have actually exists.
To be clear, it does not. A “Q” clearance at the
Department of Energy wouldn't grant QAnon the level of access its believers believe QAnon has. I can't think of a good rewording. [S]urrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have an imaginary form of Q clearance
? [C]laiming to have a non-existent form of Q clearance granting higher access than Q clearance would
? So wordy!
Best, Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Please enjoy this completely random plate of strawberries. Thank you for your effort here on English Wikipedia! Randompointofview ( talk) 06:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
So looking at the past listing for Vice Media on WP:RSP it makes no sense. One discussion is literally just a single-response about Refinery29, the next is some off-topic stuff about Vice from the deprecation RFC for the Daily Caller, then another noncommital single-response about Motherboard, then same for "Vice magazine usable?", then a discussion where someone was accusing Vice of being "Original Research", then a discussion of whether a film review was a review or an ad. Perhaps it's time for a firmer discussion on WP:RSN about Vice? It only seems to be "Yellow" because no clear discussion has been had. IHateAccounts ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Executive summary: Could you remove the {{ BLP sources}} template from Julie Brill?
Details: The article Julie Brill has apparently had a "citations needed" template at the top since April 2010. Over the past year, the sentences have been painstakingly cited, through multiple correct uses of the COI edit request process on Talk:Julie Brill: every sentence now bears at least one, and many several, citations or references. Yet on the last COI edit request implementation, the implementing non-COI editor, Donna, User:DonSpencer1, wrote: "more are indeed needed to properly source the article". I asked Donna on her talk page what citations are still needed, but it has been five days, and since Donna has, from notices on her user and talk pages, gone "semi-retired", and hasn't edited for a month, I don't think she will answer any time soon. So I'm asking you, as someone with a lot of experience, a spotless reputation, and a certain interest in the subject of women in tech companies, to glance over the article Julie Brill, and if you agree with me that citations are no longer blatantly needed, to be so good as to delete that template. Or if not, to say what text needs citation to remove the template, because I honestly can't see it. In case you've forgotten, here's my own COI statement. Thank you! -- GRuban ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas GorillaWarfare | |
Hi GorillaWarfare, just wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Hello GorillaWarfare: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, confermusearename ( talk, contribs) Have a nice day! 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
With all the free time you're going to have now that you won't be an arb, I think you should consider running for one of the community WMF trustee seats in the next election. There are probably fewer than 25 people in the world who have as much or more experience as you do when it comes to Wikimedia community governance issues, editing, and WMF/community relations. Plus, you have experience leading software engineering teams, plus you're young and will understand/connect with the under-40 demographic of editors and potential editors. The whole project would benefit from having you representing the community on the board. I hope you run. Levivich harass/ hound 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The hacks at Breitbart, are talking about us in an article titled "Lauren Southern Sends Defamation Complaint to Wikipedia over Long-Running Smear Campaign". Give it a read if you can be bothered with it, it's good for a laugh. Bacondrum ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Donner60 (
talk) is wishing a foaming mug of
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.
30 days have elapsed. The majority of the votes, and the stronger argument, are clearly on my side. Powell should be described as a conspiracy theorist because that's a huge part of what she is known for in RS. Contrary to your argument, our opinion about what matters in her life is irrelevant. Judged by mention in RS, the 1.5 months of election conspiracy theories (and representation of Trump) is at least as important as her other work as a lawyer and federal prosecutor, and almost certainly more so.
You're smart (much smarter, and for that matter less petty, than most of the Admins), and I think you'll realize that my argument is the stronger one if you re-read it. Regardless the community has spoken and it's time to move on. CozyandDozy ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
TheSandDoctor
Talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 09gregco ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi GorillaWarfare, I have objected to the closure both in rationale (rejecting out-of-hand the weight of Support !votes by claiming they did not provide enough sources, especially after both NonReproBlue and Neutrality provided multiple WP:RS supporting the wording) and failing to account for the change in coverage during the time the discussion ran.
I'm also a little disappointed that you didn't re-check your own work on the subject. The New York Times is even now explicitly using the wording "conspiracy theorist" to describe Powell. IHateAccounts ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! You protected Juan Branco last month pursuant to an RFPP request. There are some serious ongoing issues with the subject of the article making edits to the page and complaining on Twitter about potentially libelous/defamatory material, blanking, etc. A recent BLP noticeboard thread was closed after the editor claiming to be the subject appeared to make legal threats. I have fully protected the page again, but was hoping you might be able to weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
" Of course I like to talk to you, Dimitri." Thanks for the thanks, but the mysterious Aquilaeightynine (who has made almost 5,000 edits over a decade but has no User page and only "Talked" five times, back in 2014) changed my citation in Letko (sic). Then you changed his or hers while I was adding the CD features, which left my cite in progress without the refname, "heart," that I'd given it. Am I doing something that needs improvement (aside from living my life, of course), regarding my citation format? Also, I know the boundaries. We "...can't fight here. This is the War Room!" Activist ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️
Talk🌴
Help out at CCI!
01:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Despite our having some recent differences on the Sidney Powell RFC, I still highly respect your analysis and am thankful for your taking all the time you have with me. Hope you're bundled up safe for this new year with all the COVID insanity going on. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be a liar to suggest, and you a fool to believe, that there is no agenda in this post. But beyond that agenda, I find myself respecting you as an editor and intellect, so I am pleased to wish you a happy new year. CozyandDozy ( talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GW, I've tried three noticeboards this evening. Any help will be great. Happy New Year! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The Working Woman's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your impressive patience and persistence, mediating with the incessant flow of campaigning single-purpose accounts on a number of difficult talk pages. — Paleo Neonate – 12:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, GW - still no word from Berean Hunter? Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Hello i have a question about the 2020-21 NFL playoffs -- Elijah12354 ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
When do u mean by auto confirmed or confirmed access -- Elijah12354 ( talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally avoid current event articles on Wikipedia at almost all costs. Seeing you already editing in full-force January 2021 United States Capitol protests is seriously impressive. Thank you :). Perryprog ( talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you for your tireless efforts to speedily improve 2021 storming of the United States Capitol! Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
Could you take a glance at [6]? Seems to be an underage editor on wikipedia who's gone down an excessively toxic rabbit hole. IHateAccounts ( talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My section got erased unless it was no longer needed. Cwater1 ( talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked anyone. Not even remotely. I am aware of the tactics to silence any opposing views. This is two to silencing me; claiming I'm violating terms, claiming I'm using talk as a forum. Claiming I'm personally attacking. If I personally attacked anyone, anyone could cite a specific line. All I did was defend. Somehow this too will be construed as some kind of personal attack even though nobody is mentioned and I'm following a protocol others are using. J1DW ( talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Also for your work on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - I've been dipping in and out of it over the past couple of days, and it reminded me of why I hate editing current events articles so much. I have massive respect for anyone who has the patience to keep at it the way you have. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
Well I learned something new today! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I recently came across the article about Vladimir Zelenko, which is extremely one-sided in its current form. Could I get your quick opinion on whether the subject is notable enough to try salvaging the article? If so, I'm happy to try to do so; I just would rather not go through it all if it should be deleted in the end anyway. The relevant sources seem to be this NYT article and similar ones that basically amount to "this is a guy who made a questionable medical claim back in March that medical experts warned about, and whose claims were then promoted right-wing media". — DanCherek ( talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't stop to notice that you are impeding other contributors to edit some articles in Wikipedia. By that I mean you won't let any other contributors modify them in any sensible way. The articles I'm referring are supposed to be about tech platforms, but a high load of political bias were drawn upon them in your edits (ex: Gab, Parler). I also couldn't help to notice by your profile page that you lean left politically. Please, consider being less authoritarian and letting other people contribute sensibly to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 ( talk) 23:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Authoritarian barnstar | |
Congratulations, comrade! Gamaliel ( talk) 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
Please keep in mind that your individual political orientation does not mean that you are privileged to ignore Wikipedia’s impartiality policy. I noticed you are reverting my resorption of a more impartial account of Parler. Please do not assume me to be politically divergent form you, because I am not, however I adhere to the impartiality policies of Wikipedia as I believe they benefit everyone.
Thank you and apologies for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMWikiSoldier ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up it looks like you are at 7RR. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] PackMecEng ( talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing will happen even after article is move protected, after 17 January 2021. Jashlore ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning ( talk) 18:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GW, another editor has re-added the same content that you revdel'd. I don't know at what point more protections become justified, but the original AmCon article is still being shared enough on Twitter that it's likely to be added again in the short term. Alyo ( chat· edits) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GorillaWarefare, since I just saw you pop up on my watchlist - and I didn't get an answer with another admin I asked about this (and because I thought copyvios are urgent business): I just undid a copyvio (from a book) at Nineteen_Eighty-Four, but after reading up on WP:COPYVIO I noticed that the content should probably be revdelled, is that correct? I have never had a copyvio come up so please excuse my inexperience. For the future, how are these cases best handled? The WP:COPYVIO isn't as explicit as I wished, can I place a copyvio-revdel template on the talk page, the article page? Do I undo or wait? Thank you -- Mvbaron ( talk) 17:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice article in Washington Post. Hope you are well. (I think your web page is out of date -- you're no longer in Ninth Circle of Hell (Arbcomm), right?) NE Ent 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unintended action. My apologies -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the most recent protection on Jon Ossoff expired, there has been a slow motion edit war on the page regarding the reason for his being senior to Raphael Warnock with the person stating that the reason is full term/unexpired term and citing a United States House of Representatives website as the source declaring that they are right and the other editor involved is wrong. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Fazilkhaderkt ( talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Dear Support, I had made the changes in the Khaleej Times as our Editorial Team suggested that lots of information was outdated and they gave me the content to update it. So nothing much was changes for few paragraph update and grammatical correction. Appreciate your understanding and support. Thank you!
You seem to be randomly adding former to president Trump. If he was president at the time, this seems inappropriate and confusing. Any actions after today would be by a former president. Fettlemap ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:217.6.21.170, just thought I would let you know. Can you ban users for stuff like that? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally sure about the rules. Sorry you have to deal with stuff like that. ChipotleHater ( talk) 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the latest Gab twitter-brigading call and their rabid followers seem to have decided you are a target, they are pasting various screenshots of information from your user page. Just thought you should be aware. [19] IHateAccounts ( talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
May this armor protect you as you valiantly protect the encyclopedia. GRuban ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Great work against vandals, it seems like your eyes are everywhere at once. Thank you for helping out. ☻ ✯✬✩⛥ InterestGather ( talk) 02:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Sorry didn't know how to add a source without the visual editing interface. Thought I could add one after. NYCyo ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
2600:8804:6600:592:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 ( talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey GorillaWarfare! I just had a quick question about where to start a conversation to gain a general consensus on something? Right now there's a pretty heated discussion going on on Donald Trump's talk page about how we should refer to him in the first sentence (i.e. saying "was the 45th president" or "served as the 45th president").
While this discussion is happening, I did some further research into other countries to see how they referenced past prime ministers and presidents, and it's pretty all over the place (some using "was", some using "served as", and some using "has been"). So my two questions: Is it worth it to post something with this question, and if so, where would I post it? I'm assuming it would be on either Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) or Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals), but I'm just not sure. Thanks! ChipotleHater ( talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe that Torba is still continuing to try to brigade the Gab article and attacking you in particular, which shows just how sexist he is. I just hope you're doing okay. Also, has he attacked any other users as well? X-Editor ( talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There may be an LTA vandalizing the article for Sam Walton. He has also triggered several LTA filters. I tried to talk to Drmies but he logged out before he could see my message. Thanks. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and thank you very much for your contributions in Wikipedia. I reviewed some of your edits on right-wing-related articles. I think some probably do not meet policies like WP:Biased, WP:Lead, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Specifically, your edits on the upper lead of the articles like Gab and Parler, which are similar in terms of defamatory context. This is exactly what I said in Talk:Gab (social network) :
What that is described in the lead of this article does not meet WP:Biased & WP:Lead & WP:Neutral and should be removed from the lead and put in a section specified for criticism. As criticism applies almost to any social media, a social media is a tool and that's self-evident that it can be used by criminals. And every social media is used by criminals. It's like saying knives are famous by being used by criminals and mass murderers Using those kind of criticizing information is irrelevant in the upper lead. Also social media articles should not be treated with double standard in this encyclopedia. For example Tor (anonymity network) is criticized and famous for being used by criminals and so on, but we don't put criticism or defamatory opinions in the upper lead, it's against our policies. Consequently I will transfer the information to another section specified for criticism with regard to that rationale. Thanks
— The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Defamation is is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.Which of my additions to the article are false? You have not provided any diffs to support any of these accusations of bias or defamation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As a leftist, I got quite shocked when I saw we add the label Far-Right To the lead of articles like Dinesh Dsouza article, but we don't have the same approach to the article of an actual far-left, such as Noam Chomsky. Being an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism), Chomsky is self-evidently a far-left. He approved his ideology, but Dsouza didn't. He rejected the idea of being far-right, argued against it. Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists and lean to far-left (including the Atlantic). These sources aren't by any means valid in this particular situation, as they have political self-interest against Dinesh Dsouza and right-wing politics. According to that logic I will remove, far-right claim from the lead, and will add it to another lower section as claim from his critiques (who are mostly leftist, far-left and anti-right-wing). If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him). So far-right claim is biased, defamatory, disputed and consequently should be removed from the lead. Thank you very much.
— The Stray Dog Talk Page 02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As a note to those above who've objected to the far-right descriptor, providing this kind of breakdown of the existing sourcing when making your comments would have been helpful. Not everyone who watchlists a page is super familiar with the available sourcing on the topic, and so it's hard to evaluate proposals when sources are not provided alongside them.
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You just thanked me for my edit on Enrique Tarrio's page. Your home page says you edit on a variety of topics. Would you like to work on an article for a classic song I've been meaning to finish? MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Hey, I wanted to point out a citation that is being used on alt-tech, but I do not think it fits WP:RS https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals This specific article is a rewrite of a news blog, which is not regarded as a RS, and I don't believe it meets Wiki's high standards for citation since its Tertiary and not an independently written article, its a copy. However, I do not have the experience you do on Wiki and I might be missing something, so I do not want to make a change unless you agree. It's not a major change to the page at all, it would only remove Triller from Alt-Tech. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear GorillaWarfare, I just came across your page yesterday, I work mostly on the German Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for your refreshing example of excellence. Really inspiring. Best wishes, -- Nanorsuaq ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there seeking your advice, I noticed you changed the protection level on List of coups and coup attempts due to edit warring, and I think it's happening again. There was constructive conversation and evidence that led to the removal of an entry related to the "storming of the capitol" from this page, you can see it in the talk page. However there has been multiple restorations of this entry without valid source or reference, engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the restorations come from different anonymous IP addresses. It looks shady. I feel that it is important to not mislabel these events, so have been reverting these entries I believe in good faith, but I also do not want to engage in edit warring myself... can you advise how to move forward in dealing with this situation? Thanks in advance!!
BluePillx ( talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why adding CITED information that proves the statement added to the article is considered ”vandalism”.
The vandalism was in the removing of the valid Information.
Also, wasn't I supposed to get multiple warnings before my right to edit was removed?
Can you please tell me what is not correct in this? :
The Breakup song was written by Freddie Mercury. Mercury never publicly disclosed the song's muse. He stated in an interview: "There isn’t really any connection between the music and my life. 'Love of My Life,' for instance, I simply made up.” However, Freddie wrote the break-up song while in the midst of he and Mary Austin's relationship changing and in the beginnings of their break up. [1]
But, Mercury often claimed he was against stating and didn't like reporters asking about, the meanings of his songs. So he would flippantly dismiss the question by saying they weren‘t about anything. " You should never ask me about my lyrics. People ask, "Why did you write such and such a lyric and what does it mean? I don’t like to explain what I was thinking when I wrote a song. I think that’s awful. That’s not what it’s all about. I don’t like to analyse it. I prefer people to put their own interpretation upon it — to read into it whatever they like.” [2]
Freddie has stated many times that his love songs were based off of his love life. He stated in interviews:. "I feel I’ve gone through all those things myself too, so basically I’m encompassing and actually gathering that research and putting them into songs. I like writing romantic songs about love because there’s much to do with me. I have always written those. I mean, since the early days... There are many things that influence you to make music, almost all that surrounds you.” [3]
John Reid said the song had been written about Mercury’s boyfriend at the time, David Minns: "Freddie actually wrote 'Love of My Life,' for David Minns. Freddie told me that. 'Love of My Life,' was for Minns." [4]
However, ”Love of My Life" had already been written before Freddie and Minns first met. It could not have been inspired by David Minns. The timeline precludes David Minns as the inspiration for "Love of My Life'.’ David Minns, in his book, twice says when he met Freddie, Freddie complained about how long the recording of "A Night At the Opera" (ANATO) was taking. “Oh, i’m just a bit pissed off with the way things are going with the new album, it’s taking forever.” [5] and "l remember him telling me before we said goodbye that night that he often despaired of ever seeing it finished as the recordings had been going on for so long, " [6] BomiRustomji ( talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Protected "Love of My Life (Queen song)": Edit warring / content dispute -- discuss your suggested changes on the talk page; do not continuously war over them.I am sure you know much more about Queen and his work than I do; I have no idea whether what you are adding is correct or not. However I do see that the topic of who inspired the song has been disputed at length on the talk page, and I saw the ongoing edit war between you and what I later determined to be a handful of sockpuppets. Regardless of who is right, it is not okay to war over the content of the page; please establish consensus for your suggested version on the talk page and then it can be introduced to the article itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@gorillawarfare I’m trying to discover how this works. So I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way.
What I don't understand is that if you determined that sock puppets were removing the information, why would you assist them in their endeavor?
If they’re sock puppets, they’re not arguing in good faith, correct?
However I provided sources.
All I know is the page is now left with incomplete false information. For instance I provided proof the song was written before David Minns ever met Freddie. ... From Minns himself.
Yet a claim that it was about him was left there. The timeline of when the song was written definitively disproves the claim.
I don't understand why the content I added was removed. A moderator had already RESTORED it because the page was being vandalized because of the removal, and then you helped the vandals get what they wanted.
Couldnt the info had been left as as is? So it could be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I did lay out the sourcing. The arguments are being ignored because the vandals have been given gatekeeping power.
A reason I'm discussing it with you is because I think you made an error in including my original edit as the beginning of the war. Those sock puppets deleted the info without any attempt to discuss it. They vandalized what was added.
I understand now that I misunderstood the process. When I changed things back, I gave the reasons why when I did it and I thought that WAS part of the ”talk” page. But there was no attempt to discuss the content, it was just summarily deleted.
No one challenged the sources I used, they just vandalized by deleting. And then you came in and did what the vandals wanted.
In any case. I'm not sure how I'm to discuss this with sock puppets. It seems to me sock puppets have been given the power of all gatekeeping.
If there’s no one arguing in good faith, and just summarily deleting, ignoring any sourcing... there’s no one to discuss it wuth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for that advice. I appreciate it. Two more questions:
What if those that are pinged never respond? (Maybe they no longer participate here on Wiki) How is consensus formally reached?
I wish this process was more user friendly.. BomiRustomji ( talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
I read the NYT announcement on his intent to step down this summer and added it to the lede. After doing so, I saw that it had been added in the body a few minutes earlier, and you had sorted it out a bit after a few editors got it wrong. Feel free to edit the lede any way you see fit. Thanks. Activist ( talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Quazal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]]) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For all of your contributions to Gab, Parler and Epik. Keep at it! X-Editor ( talk) 6 February 2021, 00:16 (UTC) |
Hey, wanted to thank you for the protect on Sleepless - just had a question, is Protect under BLP correct for this type of article? I never know which to request for, and knowing for the future helps me sort out what I'm doing. Nerdwiththehat Talk 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add your recent protections re: Poland to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have been updating the entry for Jason Figgis, film director. I now see that all the new additions have been removed and it has reverted to the previous version. A message was left saying the following: Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. An edit you recently made to Jason Figgis seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This was not done as a test. I am a film producer who works with Mr Figgis. These changes were made to bring his entry up to date. I would appreciate it if these additions were put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Jason Figgis entry. I am not being paid to update it. I am updating it because it is several years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
You asked if I am being paid to edit the entry. I have confirmed I am not. Please define your definition of 'adequate sourcing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I was actually in the process of adding links when you removed all the new material - his website, IMDb links to films, online articles etc etc. Maybe a message should have been sent asking about adding sources before removing all my revisions/additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Why have you locked the page? 74.73.230.232 ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Satanic Communist Barnstar | |
Hail Satan, Comrade! Gamaliel ( talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC) |
Why did you say my edit was not constructive? Systematic racism cannot just be asserted without evidence. If there is evidence then it should be linked in the Redskin article, otherwise it can only be alleged. Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.220.151 ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
this is true from zdnet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I added the Auguste Piccard quote from the popular science magazine with citation. Can you please explain to me how this is misleading?
-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 17:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from as far as the quote and the placing of said quote in that specific category.
However, I believe the mention of Piccard and his flight detailed in the magazine placed in “references in pop culture“ is appropriate given that popular science is a widely accepted factual magazine. What the reader interprets after they leave Wikipedia shouldn’t be up to the page editor. I removed the quote. Why was the article removed after I removed the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source.( WP:QUOTE).
Why was the article removed after I removed the quote?I'm not sure what you're asking here. The article is still at Auguste Piccard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to clarify and explain the error of my ways ;) I have learned something. I did not realize the complexity involved with making a contribution. Are there any resources available to learn more?
-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the thank-you, if that makes sense. The oldest pun I know of that relates to your username comes from Chapter 48 ("Wellington") in 1066 and All That (1930):
The second part of the Napoleonic War was fought in Spain and Portugal and was called the Gorilla War on account of the primitive Spanish method of fighting.
Wellington became so impatient with the slow movements of the French troops that he occupied himself drawing imaginary lines all over Portugal and thus marking off the fighting zone; he made a rule that defeats beyond these lines did not count, while any French army that came his side of them was out of bounds. Having thus insured himself against disaster, Wellington won startling victories at Devalera, Albumina, Salamanda, etc.
Rhythdybiau ( talk) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'll see what I can do in terms of neutral items to add. I've found a book he wrote. I believe in letting the subjects speak for themselves regardless of their point of views' popularity. Wikipedia should point people to factual stuff that merits inclusion and reflects a fair presentation. Too many editors/volunteers are pushing or sneaking in their own political ideas and opinions in lately & ruining articles. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's what I meant. I'll look for things he's created and add them. However, because this guy is a conservative, my guess is that someone will most likely delete/revert any such valid additions. I don't know how to handle that if it occurs. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I am more than acquainted with people being rude to me on this project,
So sorry. Hope this kitten helps.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
01:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, this user has continued in their previous form after their recent block. Would you agree reimposition is warranted? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey GW. Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at the dates and somehow (somehow!) overlooked that you were already attending to this matter. Sorry for stepping on any toes. The new ANI report, which was bumped and which I had merged with the parent thread, is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks and sorry, again. Regards, El_C 15:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you approve the edits I made to Gab about how their website briefly went offline? Thanks! X-Editor ( talk) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I think this could be useful to you for the incel wikipedia page: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=commstudiespapers
It seems very thorough since it has a section from the origins of the online subculture in the section "Appropriation: From Alana to Elliot Rodger" (page eleven) to modern day
Thebetoof ( talk) 12:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
UTRS appeal #40691. Smarter than me. Out of my depth. Need someone sharp. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I had gone on vacation and hadn't realized the discussion had continued on past our initial responses. Sorry you had to handle all the angry IPs by yourself. Good edits btw, I'm not sure that came across in my comments, but wanted to make sure you knew I thought you did a great job managing all of it. Squatch347 ( talk) 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to correct many defaming statements that exist on this page and update it with objective truths about the individual. As it stands, the page is poorly written and is set up to pain the image of someone the author is not. You have claimed some kind of authority over this page, which is incredibly brazen considering you are not Jack Donovan himself. I will continue to add my changes as they are NOT considered promotional. Listing someone's works and beliefs is not promoting them any more than any other author, artist, or musicians' Wiki page does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we can get a very interesting article here. Donovan is quite the multifaceted individual. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I used the the McKay reference because it’s concise. McKay wrote a significantly longer essay on his website called “What Is the Core of Masculinity?” He writes about Donovan’s philosophy extensively. It is not a commentary on a blog. I don’t think it could be seen as promotional. McKay is an essayist and Author. He has written several books on masculinity. His online magazine is the leading independent online magazine for men, with 10 million monthly views. He writes articles/essays on masculinity regularly. I’d still like to include a “Reception” paragraph concerning McKay’s views on Donovan. Here is a link to the McKay essay. His commentary on Donovan’s philosophy in The Way of Men begins with a section titled “Keeping the Perimeter.”
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/ Cleantheshymn ( talk) 00:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
So...clarifying. If McKay makes a comment on Donovan in his own publication it’s not useable. But, if McKay comments on Donovan in a source that is not his own then it’s useable. Cleantheshymn ( talk) 00:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Bryan Johanson with {{ prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are: (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this criterion is discrete from the one used after a proper placement of the tag, and fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion via this process. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Red Tape Rampaging Ape | |
Thank you for all your work as an editor and admin! I've seen you patiently addressing users' concerns on gender-based articles recently, as well as a certain author's bio, and I wanted to offer a token of recognition. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) |
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Hi GorillaWarfare!
I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.
This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on article and user talk pages. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.
If you are 18 years or older, I would love to have you participate. Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? . The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone. We can find a platform that works best for you.
Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.
If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.
via Email: tbipat@uw.edu via Wikipedia: tbipat
Best, Tbipat ( talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Good day, Is the deletion of my edit to the history section of anti-racism due to the lack of a reference or do you believe the edit I made to be less than factual. Thank you for your time;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.250.21 ( talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As a result of the Parler scrape and now the Myanmar governmental hack, it is about time for the Austrian hacker Donk_Enby/Crash Override to have her own article, as the notability threshold is clearly breached.
From the meaning behind her name, to the major international events, she deserves a curated BLP, do you agree? I think you are competent to take a crack at it, and will attempt a fair summary TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
An article to be built upon is fitting at this point, I think
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/myanmar-google-propaganda-blog-military-coup-donk-enby-2021-2
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 00:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Kotterman's is also the founder of Lawnchair Launcher Foundation.
Bloomberg, Fortune, articles piling in
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/12/22328344/tillie-kottmann-hacker-raid-switzerland-verkada-cameras
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 12:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/verkada-hack-tesla-nissan-equinox-cloudflare/#app TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 12:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Clearly a mistake - was trying to copy and paste the 1876 election into my sandbox for creative, map making purposeses.
Apologies. ("; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your consistent hard work updating COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts on a daily basis! Hurricane Covid ( contribs) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Molly! I've been working today on an article to cover the recent Microsot Exchange Server attacks. It's currently awaiting review. Given your background, would you be interested in working on it? Also, would you think the incident (and its article) can go to ITN? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 09:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What RS says super sexualities are fake? I have no idea, but if we're going to call it fake, we need a citation for this.
Incidentally, nice to meet you. Yours, Joe ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Molly, thank you for making my additions to "Manila City Jail" look more presentable. I must confess: it's still my first month here (so I'm still struggeling with getting references and source text right and all that). Your profile indicates a friendly and knowledgable person, so you might be able to tell me one thing: I have the plan to re-write one of the biographic articles which has been flagged for the lack of citations. My plan is to include substantial new sources, which also means that some of the original text (with almost no sources) would have to go and the proportion of what remains would be small after I finished. So of course I am aware that this might get me into trouble, that's why I prefer to aks before putting too much work into it. Should I explain what I did and why I did it on the Discussion page of the article or would that seem weird? In addition I'm not a native speaker and the best sources available have not been translated... Greetings from Germany Llydia ( talk) 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
IP was warned, but I think a comment like this might (ought to?) be a bannable offense. Funcrunch ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
On 14 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer T• C 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do—funnily enough, I did think it didn't usually take that long (if you know what I mean). —— Serial 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reverted my recent edit to DDoS-Guard with the note "find secondary RS please". You are the article's main author and I am merely an IP address, but I wonder if you would reconsider. I added the sentence "DDoS-Guard also provides services to Sci-Hub" with two independent sources as citations (independent of each other and independent of the subjects of the article). From my reading of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources, though, I would argue the sources were adequate. Secondary sources are not absolutely required, and primary sources may be used for straightforward statements of fact. W3Techs is reliable enough to be cited in 95 Wikipedia articles already. Providing two sources for the same statement adds verifiability. Anyway, thanks for your attention to detail in the article. 209.6.195.188 ( talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's series of poorly formated text-walls of extremely defamatory and abusive language against involved editors, primarily myself, by unsigned anonymous IP (I actually suspect that person behind these two IP's is admin and bureaucrat(!) at bs.wiki project, but I think they don't have an account on en.wiki):
Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic.[24];
Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons.[25];
This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all.[26];
In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet.[27];
I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic.[28];
This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications.[29];
followed by:
All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic)(!?)
sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses[30]
*IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage:[31]
The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately[32]
Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent.[33];
it just kept coming:
User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs.( [34]);
and coming:
SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers.( [35])
Needless to say, but just for the record, non of the involved editors have more than a handful of edits on mentioned bs. and hr.wiki. However, it is impossible to have usual, normal discussion at this TP for two reasons, these assaults and the fact that they are posting them in form of enormous walls of really poorly formatted text. Are these abuses blockable?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)? Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.
Opertinicy ( talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)?
Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.
Wikipedia, by it's stated purpose, shouldn't ignore simple facts about *public officials*. We can discuss this in a dispute resolution if you would like.
Opertinicy ( talk) 04:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this is unfortunate and what you're explaining is counterproductive and reinforces the 'taboo' of those who have transitioned.I completely disagree for the aforementioned reasons (including the mission/purpose statement of Wikipedia). I think you're making folks who have transitioned a more taboo subject than what it should be. As I've said: assuming that she regrets or is offended by inclusion of her birth name is creating an unnecessary issue based on assumptions. She is not ashamed of her transition or past, and calling it 'deadnaming' is editorializing. If she said she was ok with it, would that make it appropriate in an encyclopedic article? Articles should be objective, not editorials.
Opertinicy ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I created a draft article Draft:Isaac Saul a few months back, and because of all the work you have done related to political issues I thought it might be something you would be interested in reviewing if you have time. Thank you! Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 14:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Molly, since you work in this area, I thought I'd alert you to this new userbox, Template:User mgtow. I was alerted to it because of vandalism done to it but thought you might like to know. I don't think it breaks any rules, I was just surprised to see it in 2021. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Gorilla Warfare, I was wondering if you could assess the consensus and close the move request at Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Requested_move_17_March_2021 please? 7 days have passed and now there's just a lot of back and forth and repetition, etc. I would like an admin to close this move discussion. Thank you and I'll highly appreciate it, Some1 ( talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for all the disruptive edits I made to the Gab article in 2019. Not only do I completely regret my actions, but my political views and views in general have also changed drastically since then. I am not the same person I was in 2019 is the point I'm trying to make. I hope you can accept my apology. X-Editor ( talk) 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For dealing with immeasurable amounts of crap but handling it professionally every time. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi GW, Kudzuedith just restored the diff that you suppressed at Talk:Rachel Levine. Can you suppress this new edit, as well? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not intend to add that link in your voice, as though you yourself added it. I apologize for any confusion. However, I will suggest that you replace it, as it is very pertinent to the discussion. You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronoun, and you've ammended the section title to say "may use". The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all along. nagual design 16:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronounI have accepted that Lonsdale uses he/him pronouns. I have no idea if he also uses "tree" or not. People sometimes use multiple pronouns (you'll often see people who use "she/they", for example), so using one pronoun does not necessarily mean a person does not use another.
The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all alongIf EEng had only been arguing that Lonsdale does not use the "tree" pronoun, we would not be at ANI. It is EEng's behavior that is under discussion, not the content of the article, which is properly being discussed at the article talk page.
GorillaWarfare,
I recently revised the above Wiki to update and include an additional published reference to support the revision. Slatersteven continues to insist on reverting the revision to an earlier, inaccurate version of this Wiki. As you recently put a lock on this, please do what you can about this situation to prevent continued reversions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4202:2EE0:A990:759B:B691:29D ( talk) 08:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted you to know that your account and name has been listed on two far-right pages BreitBart and Daily Stormer. I think its a policy violation? I am quite a newbie here, so just wanted you to know. Thanks! Interesting Geek ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a problem with a user Yozdek who keeps sending me notifications and repetitive messages, I wanted you to please be called to your attention by those facts. OaxacaGenius ( talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, GW - Just curious...about the recent pronoun discussion, and identity preferences. I realize and understand most of the concerns, and I do my best to respect an individual's wishes. One question that popped into my head: do we comply only with preferences that are applicable to gender, or does it also include other aspects of "being" and how one chooses to be identified, such as race, religion, and....well, what else, if anything? I like keeping up with the times and staying on the cutting edge of technology, science and cultural trends, but it's rather hard to do considering I've been in lockdown on and off on this small island for the past year where there are no universities, and barely what we'd call a hospital. I am very internet dependent, and that's a bit unnerving, too. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't follow the discussions closely, but it seems that Lonsdale wants the word "tree" to be used as a pronoun by everyone, not just for himself:
I see that we don't follow his wishes in his article, or any of the other biographies here. I get the feeling that his odd wish doesn't get much traction anywhere... -- Valjean ( talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've edited some parts on Epik that has no clues, but you're accusing me that I'm vandalising articles. Could you tell me what the problem was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.218.128.125 ( talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Gorilla, as you're already likely aware, that misbegotten super straight article is kaput. I say: if the super straight meme ever becomes more reified, and some actual RS are available, let's you and I make a high-quality article about it. In the memetime, the memes go on without us. The fact is most memes don't have scholarly work done on them, and so are generally not Wikipedia-friendly.
Hope you're well. Joe ( talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?
197.237.79.204 ( talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
By "well sourced", are you referring to the 3 articles linked in footnote 6? 2600:1702:1700:1700:0:0:0:3B ( talk) 02:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I suggest you to add an hyperlink to
Wikipedia:Why create an account? in the sentence « Creating an account on Wikipedia is quick, free, and does not require you to provide any personal information
» in
https://www.mollywhite.net/wikipedia-concern . You don't need to reply to this suggestion.
Visite fortuitement prolongée (
talk)
23:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way only open AFD/XFD/MFD/RFC pages I make are added to my watchlist? 4thfile4thrank ( talk) 03:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to commend you on this edit where you changed ID to identification and gave the ironic edit summary of "unnecessary abbr", thereby using an abbreviation of "abbreviation" to explain the removal of another abbreviation. It made me chuckle as I looked through my Watchlist. BirdValiant ( talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you help mediate a dispute I am having with a user/arbitrator named Roscelese. She isn't responding to requests I am making to talk. I sent out some more request and haven't heard back. However, there hasn't been a ton of time so she still might respond but I had already requested to talk to her about it per Wiki Guidelines and she just reverted my post and made the same statement "living bio bad sources etc etc" or something like that. She doesn't say which source or why and basically changes my even handed post into to a post that is defending the person the article is about because it mischaracterizes the poster to make it say the poster was offensive to "Muslims" as though it is a fact rather than keeping it the way it was - factual/even handed where the poster is going agaisnt actual Jihadists (people with machine guns and explosive suicide vests). I think she may be upset because I misunderstood the criticism and controversy section and wrote a piece on the subject that, while well reasoned, probably was considered my own research under Wikipedia Guidelines. I left that down because I think she was probably correct (even though my own research was a well reasoned analysis of Eltahawy's actions based on sources from her own movements that she was a part of - I do admit it was suggestive of my opinion on Eltahawy which is another reason I left it down- but thought that is what the reader understands when they see 'criticism' in the title). I've asked a pro-Israel user as well if he can help mediate. I'm somewhat reticent to ask you because I'm basically helping her by including you since you do a lot of the manosphere stuff (thank you for your work on that if it is even handed- I haven't looked at all your work but I know those groups are "out there" too - like Mona Eltahawy is). Since the page is on Mona Eltahwy, which is a self described radical Islamic Feminist and the post I made had to do with her arrest over a poster against Radical Jihad (not liberal/radical Islamic feminism - and remmeber, this is Mona Eltahwy's self description), I thought having a pro-Israel mediator and someone involved with more of the feminist arena would be a good mix to have the discussion. Look forward to your response. Thanks
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 04:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I disagree that anything clear was written prior to me contacting you and if something was I didn't see it - please show it so (time stamps would help too). I disagree with the assertion that regurgitating a policy line without more is an explanation. This was the regurgitation: "You may not use unreliable sources or misrepresent sources to cast aspersions on a living person" - that's not really clear without further explanation - doesn't even say what source and how many arbitration cases on sources exist and how much reading and research do I have to do to see what is allowed? New people need to be helped by arbitrators. Not just told NO. And if you are referring to this explanation: "Undid revision 992602231 by GhostsOfGironde (talk) WP:RSP#Blaze Media -- please discuss your proposed additions on the talk page per WP:BRD, as they have been repeatedly contested and have had issues with NPOV, OR, and sourcing" it was not seen by me before contacting you as it was probably being done at the same time. I wasn't being given a real reason. What you stated was definitely more information and the knew one at least gives codes. Also, what is batman? Is that a fly by night thing? That sounds like a veiled internal canvassing attempt if it is "codeword" to others. I have no way of knowing because I am new. Do you know what "batman" means? To signal with a codeword with a new person who wouldn't know would be veiled and disingenuous. I'm trying to assum good faith but she already lied by ommission to me on our initial contact and had a Canvassing attempt (not as a new person, after at least 5 whole years of editing- if she started in 2000, then 10 years...I can't tell)
I really care about making this accurate. It bothers me a lot because it puts a lot of people in danger, including the ones that had to face the mini pogrom in May 2020 in Fairfax, Los Angeles. If speaking out against Jihad is Islamophobia, all those people are going to be in serious physical danger because they will first be in danger and then any attempt to defend themselves will be described as Islamophobia creating more aggression against them. And Wikipedia will have helped create the social atmosphere to make that happen. Thats not good for Wikipedia's future.
I would still like to mediate the content changes she made that don't have to do with "the Blaze". Are you willing to mediate that? She also used the word "WE" when speaking about liking my edits in an initial message on my talk page. She won't speak with me so I thought you might know (she might speak with me now but I kind of want to cool off for a bit with her and will go to the tlak page later), do you know who the "WE" is that she refers to? Is it Wikipedia itself?
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
She lied by ommission on our initial contact and as I said has been in trouble before. It was stonewalling pretty much. It was a revert war with multiple times and no real explanation but the boilerplates. After a time or two it should be more than that. You can see it if you really analyze the timing of her responses. What I'm saying is likely - especially with her history. What about "batman"? I will go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostsOfGironde ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'll put some proposals on there tomorrow as I need to relook at the sources. I need to cool down but thanks for agreeing to weigh in. I'll ping you when I make the proposals.
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you're correct, we were definitely both editing at the same time. Wish it was live. Anyways, cooled down a little but its really not that hyperbolic if you were there near the area. I can get you the video on the talk page. People's business were ransacked and people were accosted. The police refused to help because they had too much to handle. Synagogues and other community structures were spray painted too with disparaging remarks. It really was a lot like a Russian style pogrom in proto-form. I can explain later. And the canvassing thing - yeah a long time ago - but after so much time she should have known by then how wrong that is. So it is questionable when coupled with the lie by omission and the nature of the edits she removed. But lets stop with that - my opinion is mine - yours is your's and that's fine. I'll see you later on the talk page.
GhostsOfGironde ( talk) 06:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I recently created the article for American Airlines Flight 476. However, I just checked Earwig, and I am now greatly concerned if I paraphrased the accident report too closely. Have I infringed on anyone's copyright? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 02:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I was very sad to see that you are not running again for ArbCom. I hope you decide to run again after a respite. Any particular reason? If you have answered already, please feel free to point me to your previous statement. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I love your post from Dr. Strangelove. One of my favorite movies. Kubrick is quite the artist-- many top notch films under his belt. Full Metal Jacket was just on TCM -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I actually liked the way the ArbCom resolved a recent case request. You know, the one where there was bad chemistry between the parties, problems flared up periodically, but the solution was to suspend the matter and table the case? (I was so tempted to write that in the case request, but finally decided the risk of being justifiably indefinitely blocked was too high...) -- GRuban ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, an IP editor re-added information (diff [2]) about the DHS's use of this chemical against protestors in July, which had previously been reverted by another IP editor without explanation (diff [3]). This was then reverted by User:Graywalls claiming WP:DUE (diff [4]). I restored the sentence (after copyediting and adding another source) (diff [5]) but was reverted by Graywalls and then again by JimRenge, claiming WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. There is a discussion on the talk page ( Talk:Hexachloroethane) started by the IP and continued between myself and Graywalls. My position is that they cannot simply claim there is no consensus for inclusion and insist on removing when two other editors disagree, and the sources are reliable and the news is notable. JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion. Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles. Am I mistaken that they are misinterpreting policy/guidelines and that this is not how consensus is achieved, or are they correct and the sentence should be removed until they feel consensus has been reached? Thanks, Laval ( talk) 20:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
JimRenge did not bother to join the discussion.It looks like JimRenge has just joined the discussion. I would recommend pinging an editor on a talk page before determining that they have "not bothered" to join a discussion; they may not have the page on their watchlist or otherwise may not have realized there was a discussion happening where their input was desired.
Graywalls also argues that news items don't belong in chemistry articles.I can't really speak to this, as I don't edit chemistry articles much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this oddity, that happened to me yesterday. Weird stuff! XOR'easter ( talk) 02:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Cats came up on the Wikimedia discord, and I thought of you. Have a kitty.
I dream of horses
(Contribs) Please
notify me after replying off my
talk page. Thank you.
08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like your advice on a wording issue on the article Q clearance, if you have time to provide it. The very bottom § See also says:
- QAnon, a conspiracy theory surrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have Q clearance
My problem with this is that it makes it seem like the Q clearance that the anonymous poster claims to have actually exists.
To be clear, it does not. A “Q” clearance at the
Department of Energy wouldn't grant QAnon the level of access its believers believe QAnon has. I can't think of a good rewording. [S]urrounding an anonymous poster claiming to have an imaginary form of Q clearance
? [C]laiming to have a non-existent form of Q clearance granting higher access than Q clearance would
? So wordy!
Best, Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Please enjoy this completely random plate of strawberries. Thank you for your effort here on English Wikipedia! Randompointofview ( talk) 06:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
So looking at the past listing for Vice Media on WP:RSP it makes no sense. One discussion is literally just a single-response about Refinery29, the next is some off-topic stuff about Vice from the deprecation RFC for the Daily Caller, then another noncommital single-response about Motherboard, then same for "Vice magazine usable?", then a discussion where someone was accusing Vice of being "Original Research", then a discussion of whether a film review was a review or an ad. Perhaps it's time for a firmer discussion on WP:RSN about Vice? It only seems to be "Yellow" because no clear discussion has been had. IHateAccounts ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Executive summary: Could you remove the {{ BLP sources}} template from Julie Brill?
Details: The article Julie Brill has apparently had a "citations needed" template at the top since April 2010. Over the past year, the sentences have been painstakingly cited, through multiple correct uses of the COI edit request process on Talk:Julie Brill: every sentence now bears at least one, and many several, citations or references. Yet on the last COI edit request implementation, the implementing non-COI editor, Donna, User:DonSpencer1, wrote: "more are indeed needed to properly source the article". I asked Donna on her talk page what citations are still needed, but it has been five days, and since Donna has, from notices on her user and talk pages, gone "semi-retired", and hasn't edited for a month, I don't think she will answer any time soon. So I'm asking you, as someone with a lot of experience, a spotless reputation, and a certain interest in the subject of women in tech companies, to glance over the article Julie Brill, and if you agree with me that citations are no longer blatantly needed, to be so good as to delete that template. Or if not, to say what text needs citation to remove the template, because I honestly can't see it. In case you've forgotten, here's my own COI statement. Thank you! -- GRuban ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas GorillaWarfare | |
Hi GorillaWarfare, just wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Hello GorillaWarfare: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, confermusearename ( talk, contribs) Have a nice day! 21:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
With all the free time you're going to have now that you won't be an arb, I think you should consider running for one of the community WMF trustee seats in the next election. There are probably fewer than 25 people in the world who have as much or more experience as you do when it comes to Wikimedia community governance issues, editing, and WMF/community relations. Plus, you have experience leading software engineering teams, plus you're young and will understand/connect with the under-40 demographic of editors and potential editors. The whole project would benefit from having you representing the community on the board. I hope you run. Levivich harass/ hound 04:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The hacks at Breitbart, are talking about us in an article titled "Lauren Southern Sends Defamation Complaint to Wikipedia over Long-Running Smear Campaign". Give it a read if you can be bothered with it, it's good for a laugh. Bacondrum ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Donner60 (
talk) is wishing a foaming mug of
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.
30 days have elapsed. The majority of the votes, and the stronger argument, are clearly on my side. Powell should be described as a conspiracy theorist because that's a huge part of what she is known for in RS. Contrary to your argument, our opinion about what matters in her life is irrelevant. Judged by mention in RS, the 1.5 months of election conspiracy theories (and representation of Trump) is at least as important as her other work as a lawyer and federal prosecutor, and almost certainly more so.
You're smart (much smarter, and for that matter less petty, than most of the Admins), and I think you'll realize that my argument is the stronger one if you re-read it. Regardless the community has spoken and it's time to move on. CozyandDozy ( talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello GorillaWarfare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
TheSandDoctor
Talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 09gregco ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi GorillaWarfare, I have objected to the closure both in rationale (rejecting out-of-hand the weight of Support !votes by claiming they did not provide enough sources, especially after both NonReproBlue and Neutrality provided multiple WP:RS supporting the wording) and failing to account for the change in coverage during the time the discussion ran.
I'm also a little disappointed that you didn't re-check your own work on the subject. The New York Times is even now explicitly using the wording "conspiracy theorist" to describe Powell. IHateAccounts ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! You protected Juan Branco last month pursuant to an RFPP request. There are some serious ongoing issues with the subject of the article making edits to the page and complaining on Twitter about potentially libelous/defamatory material, blanking, etc. A recent BLP noticeboard thread was closed after the editor claiming to be the subject appeared to make legal threats. I have fully protected the page again, but was hoping you might be able to weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
" Of course I like to talk to you, Dimitri." Thanks for the thanks, but the mysterious Aquilaeightynine (who has made almost 5,000 edits over a decade but has no User page and only "Talked" five times, back in 2014) changed my citation in Letko (sic). Then you changed his or hers while I was adding the CD features, which left my cite in progress without the refname, "heart," that I'd given it. Am I doing something that needs improvement (aside from living my life, of course), regarding my citation format? Also, I know the boundaries. We "...can't fight here. This is the War Room!" Activist ( talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️
Talk🌴
Help out at CCI!
01:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Despite our having some recent differences on the Sidney Powell RFC, I still highly respect your analysis and am thankful for your taking all the time you have with me. Hope you're bundled up safe for this new year with all the COVID insanity going on. IHateAccounts ( talk) 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be a liar to suggest, and you a fool to believe, that there is no agenda in this post. But beyond that agenda, I find myself respecting you as an editor and intellect, so I am pleased to wish you a happy new year. CozyandDozy ( talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GW, I've tried three noticeboards this evening. Any help will be great. Happy New Year! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The Working Woman's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your impressive patience and persistence, mediating with the incessant flow of campaigning single-purpose accounts on a number of difficult talk pages. — Paleo Neonate – 12:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, GW - still no word from Berean Hunter? Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Hello i have a question about the 2020-21 NFL playoffs -- Elijah12354 ( talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
When do u mean by auto confirmed or confirmed access -- Elijah12354 ( talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally avoid current event articles on Wikipedia at almost all costs. Seeing you already editing in full-force January 2021 United States Capitol protests is seriously impressive. Thank you :). Perryprog ( talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thank you for your tireless efforts to speedily improve 2021 storming of the United States Capitol! Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
Could you take a glance at [6]? Seems to be an underage editor on wikipedia who's gone down an excessively toxic rabbit hole. IHateAccounts ( talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My section got erased unless it was no longer needed. Cwater1 ( talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have not personally attacked anyone. Not even remotely. I am aware of the tactics to silence any opposing views. This is two to silencing me; claiming I'm violating terms, claiming I'm using talk as a forum. Claiming I'm personally attacking. If I personally attacked anyone, anyone could cite a specific line. All I did was defend. Somehow this too will be construed as some kind of personal attack even though nobody is mentioned and I'm following a protocol others are using. J1DW ( talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Also for your work on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - I've been dipping in and out of it over the past couple of days, and it reminded me of why I hate editing current events articles so much. I have massive respect for anyone who has the patience to keep at it the way you have. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
Well I learned something new today! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I recently came across the article about Vladimir Zelenko, which is extremely one-sided in its current form. Could I get your quick opinion on whether the subject is notable enough to try salvaging the article? If so, I'm happy to try to do so; I just would rather not go through it all if it should be deleted in the end anyway. The relevant sources seem to be this NYT article and similar ones that basically amount to "this is a guy who made a questionable medical claim back in March that medical experts warned about, and whose claims were then promoted right-wing media". — DanCherek ( talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I couldn't stop to notice that you are impeding other contributors to edit some articles in Wikipedia. By that I mean you won't let any other contributors modify them in any sensible way. The articles I'm referring are supposed to be about tech platforms, but a high load of political bias were drawn upon them in your edits (ex: Gab, Parler). I also couldn't help to notice by your profile page that you lean left politically. Please, consider being less authoritarian and letting other people contribute sensibly to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 ( talk) 23:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Authoritarian barnstar | |
Congratulations, comrade! Gamaliel ( talk) 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
Please keep in mind that your individual political orientation does not mean that you are privileged to ignore Wikipedia’s impartiality policy. I noticed you are reverting my resorption of a more impartial account of Parler. Please do not assume me to be politically divergent form you, because I am not, however I adhere to the impartiality policies of Wikipedia as I believe they benefit everyone.
Thank you and apologies for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMWikiSoldier ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up it looks like you are at 7RR. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] PackMecEng ( talk) 03:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing will happen even after article is move protected, after 17 January 2021. Jashlore ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning ( talk) 18:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GW, another editor has re-added the same content that you revdel'd. I don't know at what point more protections become justified, but the original AmCon article is still being shared enough on Twitter that it's likely to be added again in the short term. Alyo ( chat· edits) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GorillaWarefare, since I just saw you pop up on my watchlist - and I didn't get an answer with another admin I asked about this (and because I thought copyvios are urgent business): I just undid a copyvio (from a book) at Nineteen_Eighty-Four, but after reading up on WP:COPYVIO I noticed that the content should probably be revdelled, is that correct? I have never had a copyvio come up so please excuse my inexperience. For the future, how are these cases best handled? The WP:COPYVIO isn't as explicit as I wished, can I place a copyvio-revdel template on the talk page, the article page? Do I undo or wait? Thank you -- Mvbaron ( talk) 17:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice article in Washington Post. Hope you are well. (I think your web page is out of date -- you're no longer in Ninth Circle of Hell (Arbcomm), right?) NE Ent 20:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unintended action. My apologies -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the most recent protection on Jon Ossoff expired, there has been a slow motion edit war on the page regarding the reason for his being senior to Raphael Warnock with the person stating that the reason is full term/unexpired term and citing a United States House of Representatives website as the source declaring that they are right and the other editor involved is wrong. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 13:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Fazilkhaderkt ( talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Dear Support, I had made the changes in the Khaleej Times as our Editorial Team suggested that lots of information was outdated and they gave me the content to update it. So nothing much was changes for few paragraph update and grammatical correction. Appreciate your understanding and support. Thank you!
You seem to be randomly adding former to president Trump. If he was president at the time, this seems inappropriate and confusing. Any actions after today would be by a former president. Fettlemap ( talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:217.6.21.170, just thought I would let you know. Can you ban users for stuff like that? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally sure about the rules. Sorry you have to deal with stuff like that. ChipotleHater ( talk) 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the latest Gab twitter-brigading call and their rabid followers seem to have decided you are a target, they are pasting various screenshots of information from your user page. Just thought you should be aware. [19] IHateAccounts ( talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
May this armor protect you as you valiantly protect the encyclopedia. GRuban ( talk) 15:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Great work against vandals, it seems like your eyes are everywhere at once. Thank you for helping out. ☻ ✯✬✩⛥ InterestGather ( talk) 02:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Sorry didn't know how to add a source without the visual editing interface. Thought I could add one after. NYCyo ( talk) 03:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
2600:8804:6600:592:F9B8:305E:EC20:D062 ( talk) 16:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey GorillaWarfare! I just had a quick question about where to start a conversation to gain a general consensus on something? Right now there's a pretty heated discussion going on on Donald Trump's talk page about how we should refer to him in the first sentence (i.e. saying "was the 45th president" or "served as the 45th president").
While this discussion is happening, I did some further research into other countries to see how they referenced past prime ministers and presidents, and it's pretty all over the place (some using "was", some using "served as", and some using "has been"). So my two questions: Is it worth it to post something with this question, and if so, where would I post it? I'm assuming it would be on either Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) or Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals), but I'm just not sure. Thanks! ChipotleHater ( talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe that Torba is still continuing to try to brigade the Gab article and attacking you in particular, which shows just how sexist he is. I just hope you're doing okay. Also, has he attacked any other users as well? X-Editor ( talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There may be an LTA vandalizing the article for Sam Walton. He has also triggered several LTA filters. I tried to talk to Drmies but he logged out before he could see my message. Thanks. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings and thank you very much for your contributions in Wikipedia. I reviewed some of your edits on right-wing-related articles. I think some probably do not meet policies like WP:Biased, WP:Lead, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Specifically, your edits on the upper lead of the articles like Gab and Parler, which are similar in terms of defamatory context. This is exactly what I said in Talk:Gab (social network) :
What that is described in the lead of this article does not meet WP:Biased & WP:Lead & WP:Neutral and should be removed from the lead and put in a section specified for criticism. As criticism applies almost to any social media, a social media is a tool and that's self-evident that it can be used by criminals. And every social media is used by criminals. It's like saying knives are famous by being used by criminals and mass murderers Using those kind of criticizing information is irrelevant in the upper lead. Also social media articles should not be treated with double standard in this encyclopedia. For example Tor (anonymity network) is criticized and famous for being used by criminals and so on, but we don't put criticism or defamatory opinions in the upper lead, it's against our policies. Consequently I will transfer the information to another section specified for criticism with regard to that rationale. Thanks
— The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Defamation is is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.Which of my additions to the article are false? You have not provided any diffs to support any of these accusations of bias or defamation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As a leftist, I got quite shocked when I saw we add the label Far-Right To the lead of articles like Dinesh Dsouza article, but we don't have the same approach to the article of an actual far-left, such as Noam Chomsky. Being an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalism), Chomsky is self-evidently a far-left. He approved his ideology, but Dsouza didn't. He rejected the idea of being far-right, argued against it. Also all sources which claim he is far-right, actually are biased as hell toward right-wing activists and lean to far-left (including the Atlantic). These sources aren't by any means valid in this particular situation, as they have political self-interest against Dinesh Dsouza and right-wing politics. According to that logic I will remove, far-right claim from the lead, and will add it to another lower section as claim from his critiques (who are mostly leftist, far-left and anti-right-wing). If this instruction is not allowed, it will be problematic in terms of edit wars, because we have no choice to add such thing like far-right/far-left to the lead of other articles including Noam Chomsky (as being Far-Left is self-evident for him). So far-right claim is biased, defamatory, disputed and consequently should be removed from the lead. Thank you very much.
— The Stray Dog Talk Page 02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
As a note to those above who've objected to the far-right descriptor, providing this kind of breakdown of the existing sourcing when making your comments would have been helpful. Not everyone who watchlists a page is super familiar with the available sourcing on the topic, and so it's hard to evaluate proposals when sources are not provided alongside them.
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
You just thanked me for my edit on Enrique Tarrio's page. Your home page says you edit on a variety of topics. Would you like to work on an article for a classic song I've been meaning to finish? MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Hey, I wanted to point out a citation that is being used on alt-tech, but I do not think it fits WP:RS https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals This specific article is a rewrite of a news blog, which is not regarded as a RS, and I don't believe it meets Wiki's high standards for citation since its Tertiary and not an independently written article, its a copy. However, I do not have the experience you do on Wiki and I might be missing something, so I do not want to make a change unless you agree. It's not a major change to the page at all, it would only remove Triller from Alt-Tech. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear GorillaWarfare, I just came across your page yesterday, I work mostly on the German Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for your refreshing example of excellence. Really inspiring. Best wishes, -- Nanorsuaq ( talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there seeking your advice, I noticed you changed the protection level on List of coups and coup attempts due to edit warring, and I think it's happening again. There was constructive conversation and evidence that led to the removal of an entry related to the "storming of the capitol" from this page, you can see it in the talk page. However there has been multiple restorations of this entry without valid source or reference, engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the restorations come from different anonymous IP addresses. It looks shady. I feel that it is important to not mislabel these events, so have been reverting these entries I believe in good faith, but I also do not want to engage in edit warring myself... can you advise how to move forward in dealing with this situation? Thanks in advance!!
BluePillx ( talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why adding CITED information that proves the statement added to the article is considered ”vandalism”.
The vandalism was in the removing of the valid Information.
Also, wasn't I supposed to get multiple warnings before my right to edit was removed?
Can you please tell me what is not correct in this? :
The Breakup song was written by Freddie Mercury. Mercury never publicly disclosed the song's muse. He stated in an interview: "There isn’t really any connection between the music and my life. 'Love of My Life,' for instance, I simply made up.” However, Freddie wrote the break-up song while in the midst of he and Mary Austin's relationship changing and in the beginnings of their break up. [1]
But, Mercury often claimed he was against stating and didn't like reporters asking about, the meanings of his songs. So he would flippantly dismiss the question by saying they weren‘t about anything. " You should never ask me about my lyrics. People ask, "Why did you write such and such a lyric and what does it mean? I don’t like to explain what I was thinking when I wrote a song. I think that’s awful. That’s not what it’s all about. I don’t like to analyse it. I prefer people to put their own interpretation upon it — to read into it whatever they like.” [2]
Freddie has stated many times that his love songs were based off of his love life. He stated in interviews:. "I feel I’ve gone through all those things myself too, so basically I’m encompassing and actually gathering that research and putting them into songs. I like writing romantic songs about love because there’s much to do with me. I have always written those. I mean, since the early days... There are many things that influence you to make music, almost all that surrounds you.” [3]
John Reid said the song had been written about Mercury’s boyfriend at the time, David Minns: "Freddie actually wrote 'Love of My Life,' for David Minns. Freddie told me that. 'Love of My Life,' was for Minns." [4]
However, ”Love of My Life" had already been written before Freddie and Minns first met. It could not have been inspired by David Minns. The timeline precludes David Minns as the inspiration for "Love of My Life'.’ David Minns, in his book, twice says when he met Freddie, Freddie complained about how long the recording of "A Night At the Opera" (ANATO) was taking. “Oh, i’m just a bit pissed off with the way things are going with the new album, it’s taking forever.” [5] and "l remember him telling me before we said goodbye that night that he often despaired of ever seeing it finished as the recordings had been going on for so long, " [6] BomiRustomji ( talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Protected "Love of My Life (Queen song)": Edit warring / content dispute -- discuss your suggested changes on the talk page; do not continuously war over them.I am sure you know much more about Queen and his work than I do; I have no idea whether what you are adding is correct or not. However I do see that the topic of who inspired the song has been disputed at length on the talk page, and I saw the ongoing edit war between you and what I later determined to be a handful of sockpuppets. Regardless of who is right, it is not okay to war over the content of the page; please establish consensus for your suggested version on the talk page and then it can be introduced to the article itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@gorillawarfare I’m trying to discover how this works. So I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way.
What I don't understand is that if you determined that sock puppets were removing the information, why would you assist them in their endeavor?
If they’re sock puppets, they’re not arguing in good faith, correct?
However I provided sources.
All I know is the page is now left with incomplete false information. For instance I provided proof the song was written before David Minns ever met Freddie. ... From Minns himself.
Yet a claim that it was about him was left there. The timeline of when the song was written definitively disproves the claim.
I don't understand why the content I added was removed. A moderator had already RESTORED it because the page was being vandalized because of the removal, and then you helped the vandals get what they wanted.
Couldnt the info had been left as as is? So it could be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I did lay out the sourcing. The arguments are being ignored because the vandals have been given gatekeeping power.
A reason I'm discussing it with you is because I think you made an error in including my original edit as the beginning of the war. Those sock puppets deleted the info without any attempt to discuss it. They vandalized what was added.
I understand now that I misunderstood the process. When I changed things back, I gave the reasons why when I did it and I thought that WAS part of the ”talk” page. But there was no attempt to discuss the content, it was just summarily deleted.
No one challenged the sources I used, they just vandalized by deleting. And then you came in and did what the vandals wanted.
In any case. I'm not sure how I'm to discuss this with sock puppets. It seems to me sock puppets have been given the power of all gatekeeping.
If there’s no one arguing in good faith, and just summarily deleting, ignoring any sourcing... there’s no one to discuss it wuth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for that advice. I appreciate it. Two more questions:
What if those that are pinged never respond? (Maybe they no longer participate here on Wiki) How is consensus formally reached?
I wish this process was more user friendly.. BomiRustomji ( talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
I read the NYT announcement on his intent to step down this summer and added it to the lede. After doing so, I saw that it had been added in the body a few minutes earlier, and you had sorted it out a bit after a few editors got it wrong. Feel free to edit the lede any way you see fit. Thanks. Activist ( talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Quazal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
. Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]]) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For all of your contributions to Gab, Parler and Epik. Keep at it! X-Editor ( talk) 6 February 2021, 00:16 (UTC) |
Hey, wanted to thank you for the protect on Sleepless - just had a question, is Protect under BLP correct for this type of article? I never know which to request for, and knowing for the future helps me sort out what I'm doing. Nerdwiththehat Talk 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add your recent protections re: Poland to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have been updating the entry for Jason Figgis, film director. I now see that all the new additions have been removed and it has reverted to the previous version. A message was left saying the following: Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. An edit you recently made to Jason Figgis seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This was not done as a test. I am a film producer who works with Mr Figgis. These changes were made to bring his entry up to date. I would appreciate it if these additions were put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Jason Figgis entry. I am not being paid to update it. I am updating it because it is several years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
You asked if I am being paid to edit the entry. I have confirmed I am not. Please define your definition of 'adequate sourcing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I was actually in the process of adding links when you removed all the new material - his website, IMDb links to films, online articles etc etc. Maybe a message should have been sent asking about adding sources before removing all my revisions/additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 ( talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Why have you locked the page? 74.73.230.232 ( talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Satanic Communist Barnstar | |
Hail Satan, Comrade! Gamaliel ( talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC) |
Why did you say my edit was not constructive? Systematic racism cannot just be asserted without evidence. If there is evidence then it should be linked in the Redskin article, otherwise it can only be alleged. Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.220.151 ( talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
this is true from zdnet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I added the Auguste Piccard quote from the popular science magazine with citation. Can you please explain to me how this is misleading?
-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 17:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from as far as the quote and the placing of said quote in that specific category.
However, I believe the mention of Piccard and his flight detailed in the magazine placed in “references in pop culture“ is appropriate given that popular science is a widely accepted factual magazine. What the reader interprets after they leave Wikipedia shouldn’t be up to the page editor. I removed the quote. Why was the article removed after I removed the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 19:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source.( WP:QUOTE).
Why was the article removed after I removed the quote?I'm not sure what you're asking here. The article is still at Auguste Piccard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to clarify and explain the error of my ways ;) I have learned something. I did not realize the complexity involved with making a contribution. Are there any resources available to learn more?
-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.253.15 ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the thank-you, if that makes sense. The oldest pun I know of that relates to your username comes from Chapter 48 ("Wellington") in 1066 and All That (1930):
The second part of the Napoleonic War was fought in Spain and Portugal and was called the Gorilla War on account of the primitive Spanish method of fighting.
Wellington became so impatient with the slow movements of the French troops that he occupied himself drawing imaginary lines all over Portugal and thus marking off the fighting zone; he made a rule that defeats beyond these lines did not count, while any French army that came his side of them was out of bounds. Having thus insured himself against disaster, Wellington won startling victories at Devalera, Albumina, Salamanda, etc.
Rhythdybiau ( talk) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'll see what I can do in terms of neutral items to add. I've found a book he wrote. I believe in letting the subjects speak for themselves regardless of their point of views' popularity. Wikipedia should point people to factual stuff that merits inclusion and reflects a fair presentation. Too many editors/volunteers are pushing or sneaking in their own political ideas and opinions in lately & ruining articles. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's what I meant. I'll look for things he's created and add them. However, because this guy is a conservative, my guess is that someone will most likely delete/revert any such valid additions. I don't know how to handle that if it occurs. Lmlmss44 ( talk) 00:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I am more than acquainted with people being rude to me on this project,
So sorry. Hope this kitten helps.
Hawkeye7
(discuss)
01:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, this user has continued in their previous form after their recent block. Would you agree reimposition is warranted? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey GW. Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at the dates and somehow (somehow!) overlooked that you were already attending to this matter. Sorry for stepping on any toes. The new ANI report, which was bumped and which I had merged with the parent thread, is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks and sorry, again. Regards, El_C 15:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you approve the edits I made to Gab about how their website briefly went offline? Thanks! X-Editor ( talk) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I think this could be useful to you for the incel wikipedia page: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=commstudiespapers
It seems very thorough since it has a section from the origins of the online subculture in the section "Appropriation: From Alana to Elliot Rodger" (page eleven) to modern day
Thebetoof ( talk) 12:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
UTRS appeal #40691. Smarter than me. Out of my depth. Need someone sharp. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I had gone on vacation and hadn't realized the discussion had continued on past our initial responses. Sorry you had to handle all the angry IPs by yourself. Good edits btw, I'm not sure that came across in my comments, but wanted to make sure you knew I thought you did a great job managing all of it. Squatch347 ( talk) 21:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to correct many defaming statements that exist on this page and update it with objective truths about the individual. As it stands, the page is poorly written and is set up to pain the image of someone the author is not. You have claimed some kind of authority over this page, which is incredibly brazen considering you are not Jack Donovan himself. I will continue to add my changes as they are NOT considered promotional. Listing someone's works and beliefs is not promoting them any more than any other author, artist, or musicians' Wiki page does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we can get a very interesting article here. Donovan is quite the multifaceted individual. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I used the the McKay reference because it’s concise. McKay wrote a significantly longer essay on his website called “What Is the Core of Masculinity?” He writes about Donovan’s philosophy extensively. It is not a commentary on a blog. I don’t think it could be seen as promotional. McKay is an essayist and Author. He has written several books on masculinity. His online magazine is the leading independent online magazine for men, with 10 million monthly views. He writes articles/essays on masculinity regularly. I’d still like to include a “Reception” paragraph concerning McKay’s views on Donovan. Here is a link to the McKay essay. His commentary on Donovan’s philosophy in The Way of Men begins with a section titled “Keeping the Perimeter.”
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/what-is-the-core-of-masculinity/ Cleantheshymn ( talk) 00:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
So...clarifying. If McKay makes a comment on Donovan in his own publication it’s not useable. But, if McKay comments on Donovan in a source that is not his own then it’s useable. Cleantheshymn ( talk) 00:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Bryan Johanson with {{ prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are: (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this criterion is discrete from the one used after a proper placement of the tag, and fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion via this process. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Red Tape Rampaging Ape | |
Thank you for all your work as an editor and admin! I've seen you patiently addressing users' concerns on gender-based articles recently, as well as a certain author's bio, and I wanted to offer a token of recognition. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) |
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Hi GorillaWarfare!
I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.
This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on article and user talk pages. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.
If you are 18 years or older, I would love to have you participate. Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? . The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone. We can find a platform that works best for you.
Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.
If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.
via Email: tbipat@uw.edu via Wikipedia: tbipat
Best, Tbipat ( talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Good day, Is the deletion of my edit to the history section of anti-racism due to the lack of a reference or do you believe the edit I made to be less than factual. Thank you for your time;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.250.21 ( talk) 05:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
As a result of the Parler scrape and now the Myanmar governmental hack, it is about time for the Austrian hacker Donk_Enby/Crash Override to have her own article, as the notability threshold is clearly breached.
From the meaning behind her name, to the major international events, she deserves a curated BLP, do you agree? I think you are competent to take a crack at it, and will attempt a fair summary TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
An article to be built upon is fitting at this point, I think
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/myanmar-google-propaganda-blog-military-coup-donk-enby-2021-2
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 00:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Kotterman's is also the founder of Lawnchair Launcher Foundation.
Bloomberg, Fortune, articles piling in
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/12/22328344/tillie-kottmann-hacker-raid-switzerland-verkada-cameras
TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 12:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/verkada-hack-tesla-nissan-equinox-cloudflare/#app TuffStuffMcG ( talk) 12:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Clearly a mistake - was trying to copy and paste the 1876 election into my sandbox for creative, map making purposeses.
Apologies. ("; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyijfvbjfg ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your consistent hard work updating COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts on a daily basis! Hurricane Covid ( contribs) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Molly! I've been working today on an article to cover the recent Microsot Exchange Server attacks. It's currently awaiting review. Given your background, would you be interested in working on it? Also, would you think the incident (and its article) can go to ITN? Assem Khidhr ( talk) 09:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What RS says super sexualities are fake? I have no idea, but if we're going to call it fake, we need a citation for this.
Incidentally, nice to meet you. Yours, Joe ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Molly, thank you for making my additions to "Manila City Jail" look more presentable. I must confess: it's still my first month here (so I'm still struggeling with getting references and source text right and all that). Your profile indicates a friendly and knowledgable person, so you might be able to tell me one thing: I have the plan to re-write one of the biographic articles which has been flagged for the lack of citations. My plan is to include substantial new sources, which also means that some of the original text (with almost no sources) would have to go and the proportion of what remains would be small after I finished. So of course I am aware that this might get me into trouble, that's why I prefer to aks before putting too much work into it. Should I explain what I did and why I did it on the Discussion page of the article or would that seem weird? In addition I'm not a native speaker and the best sources available have not been translated... Greetings from Germany Llydia ( talk) 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
IP was warned, but I think a comment like this might (ought to?) be a bannable offense. Funcrunch ( talk) 04:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
On 14 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Microsoft Exchange Server data breach, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer T• C 19:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Will do—funnily enough, I did think it didn't usually take that long (if you know what I mean). —— Serial 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reverted my recent edit to DDoS-Guard with the note "find secondary RS please". You are the article's main author and I am merely an IP address, but I wonder if you would reconsider. I added the sentence "DDoS-Guard also provides services to Sci-Hub" with two independent sources as citations (independent of each other and independent of the subjects of the article). From my reading of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources, though, I would argue the sources were adequate. Secondary sources are not absolutely required, and primary sources may be used for straightforward statements of fact. W3Techs is reliable enough to be cited in 95 Wikipedia articles already. Providing two sources for the same statement adds verifiability. Anyway, thanks for your attention to detail in the article. 209.6.195.188 ( talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's series of poorly formated text-walls of extremely defamatory and abusive language against involved editors, primarily myself, by unsigned anonymous IP (I actually suspect that person behind these two IP's is admin and bureaucrat(!) at bs.wiki project, but I think they don't have an account on en.wiki):
Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic.[24];
Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons.[25];
This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all.[26];
In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet.[27];
I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic.[28];
This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications.[29];
followed by:
All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic)(!?)
sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses[30]
*IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage:[31]
The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately[32]
Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent.[33];
it just kept coming:
User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs.( [34]);
and coming:
SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers.( [35])
Needless to say, but just for the record, non of the involved editors have more than a handful of edits on mentioned bs. and hr.wiki. However, it is impossible to have usual, normal discussion at this TP for two reasons, these assaults and the fact that they are posting them in form of enormous walls of really poorly formatted text. Are these abuses blockable?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)? Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.
Opertinicy ( talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
She is a public official. How else would someone get accurate information on her (again, a *public* official of the United States Government)?
Yes, transgender is a touchy subject, but this is an encyclopedia, and she's a public official.
Wikipedia, by it's stated purpose, shouldn't ignore simple facts about *public officials*. We can discuss this in a dispute resolution if you would like.
Opertinicy ( talk) 04:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this is unfortunate and what you're explaining is counterproductive and reinforces the 'taboo' of those who have transitioned.I completely disagree for the aforementioned reasons (including the mission/purpose statement of Wikipedia). I think you're making folks who have transitioned a more taboo subject than what it should be. As I've said: assuming that she regrets or is offended by inclusion of her birth name is creating an unnecessary issue based on assumptions. She is not ashamed of her transition or past, and calling it 'deadnaming' is editorializing. If she said she was ok with it, would that make it appropriate in an encyclopedic article? Articles should be objective, not editorials.
Opertinicy ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! I created a draft article Draft:Isaac Saul a few months back, and because of all the work you have done related to political issues I thought it might be something you would be interested in reviewing if you have time. Thank you! Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 14:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Molly, since you work in this area, I thought I'd alert you to this new userbox, Template:User mgtow. I was alerted to it because of vandalism done to it but thought you might like to know. I don't think it breaks any rules, I was just surprised to see it in 2021. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196
|
--
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi Gorilla Warfare, I was wondering if you could assess the consensus and close the move request at Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Requested_move_17_March_2021 please? 7 days have passed and now there's just a lot of back and forth and repetition, etc. I would like an admin to close this move discussion. Thank you and I'll highly appreciate it, Some1 ( talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to apologize for all the disruptive edits I made to the Gab article in 2019. Not only do I completely regret my actions, but my political views and views in general have also changed drastically since then. I am not the same person I was in 2019 is the point I'm trying to make. I hope you can accept my apology. X-Editor ( talk) 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For dealing with immeasurable amounts of crap but handling it professionally every time. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 17:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi GW, Kudzuedith just restored the diff that you suppressed at Talk:Rachel Levine. Can you suppress this new edit, as well? ― Tartan357 Talk 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I did not intend to add that link in your voice, as though you yourself added it. I apologize for any confusion. However, I will suggest that you replace it, as it is very pertinent to the discussion. You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronoun, and you've ammended the section title to say "may use". The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all along. nagual design 16:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have accepted that Lonsdale does not use 'tree' as a pronounI have accepted that Lonsdale uses he/him pronouns. I have no idea if he also uses "tree" or not. People sometimes use multiple pronouns (you'll often see people who use "she/they", for example), so using one pronoun does not necessarily mean a person does not use another.
The fact is, he doesn't, which is precisely what EEng was arguing all alongIf EEng had only been arguing that Lonsdale does not use the "tree" pronoun, we would not be at ANI. It is EEng's behavior that is under discussion, not the content of the article, which is properly being discussed at the article talk page.
GorillaWarfare,
I recently revised the above Wiki to update and include an additional published reference to support the revision. Slatersteven continues to insist on reverting the revision to an earlier, inaccurate version of this Wiki. As you recently put a lock on this, please do what you can about this situation to prevent continued reversions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4202:2EE0:A990:759B:B691:29D ( talk) 08:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted you to know that your account and name has been listed on two far-right pages BreitBart and Daily Stormer. I think its a policy violation? I am quite a newbie here, so just wanted you to know. Thanks! Interesting Geek ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a problem with a user Yozdek who keeps sending me notifications and repetitive messages, I wanted you to please be called to your attention by those facts. OaxacaGenius ( talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, GW - Just curious...about the recent pronoun discussion, and identity preferences. I realize and understand most of the concerns, and I do my best to respect an individual's wishes. One question that popped into my head: do we comply only with preferences that are applicable to gender, or does it also include other aspects of "being" and how one chooses to be identified, such as race, religion, and....well, what else, if anything? I like keeping up with the times and staying on the cutting edge of technology, science and cultural trends, but it's rather hard to do considering I've been in lockdown on and off on this small island for the past year where there are no universities, and barely what we'd call a hospital. I am very internet dependent, and that's a bit unnerving, too. Atsme 💬 📧 21:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't follow the discussions closely, but it seems that Lonsdale wants the word "tree" to be used as a pronoun by everyone, not just for himself:
I see that we don't follow his wishes in his article, or any of the other biographies here. I get the feeling that his odd wish doesn't get much traction anywhere... -- Valjean ( talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've edited some parts on Epik that has no clues, but you're accusing me that I'm vandalising articles. Could you tell me what the problem was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.218.128.125 ( talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello Gorilla, as you're already likely aware, that misbegotten super straight article is kaput. I say: if the super straight meme ever becomes more reified, and some actual RS are available, let's you and I make a high-quality article about it. In the memetime, the memes go on without us. The fact is most memes don't have scholarly work done on them, and so are generally not Wikipedia-friendly.
Hope you're well. Joe ( talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |