User talk:GorillaWarfare

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the GorillaWarfare Room! Archives

April 2021 – present December 2020 – March 2021 August 2020 – November 2020 January 2020 – July 2020 April 2019 – December 2019 August 2018 – March 2019 January 2018 – July 2018 July 2017 – December 2017 October 2016 – June 2017 August 2015 – September 2016 August 2014 – July 2015 August 2013 – July 2014 November 2012 – July 2013 April 2012 – October 2012 November 2011 – March 2012 April 2011 – October 2011 December 2010 – March 2011 September 2010 – November 2010 April 2010 – August 2010 November 2009 – March 2010

Lead length

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

File:Enel X logo.png listed for discussion

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

File:Cooking for Dads logo.jpg listed for discussion

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

Intellectual dark web

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

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

Tarrio

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

@Activist: WP:BLPPRIMARY states, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

The source you are describing as BuzzFeed is not BuzzFeed News, which is listed as a reliable source as RSP. It's some site called edailybuzz.com, which appears to be some sort of gossip site, not a reliable source. The comments about his race are also not usable for any modifications to the article, which has statements about his race and heritage sourced to reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you've covered that rather thoroughly. I apologize for mistaking "edailybuzz" for BuzzFeed News. I do wonder why public records (in this case derived from court records) are not considered reliable, but newspaper sources would be? I followed the case of the family found dead on the California hiking trail a few weeks ago and numerous "reliable" news sources, including the Washington Post, had the wrong first name for the dad. Activist (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's less to do with reliability and more to do with privacy concerns. Some people prefer not to have their specific dates of birth, birth names, addresses, etc. made public, but have little choice in the matter when it comes to public records like prisoner records. If a person also discloses this information publicly themself, or if secondary reliable sources determine these details are reliable and printworthy, it's another story, but we don't include private information like this in Wikipedia (which is far more widely-read than prison records databases) otherwise. Tarrio's general age is widely known and supported by many reliable sources, as you've observed, but it seems he keeps his specific DoB somewhat private. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Actual play

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

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

YGM

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

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

(talk page stalker) Lostfan333, don't ask to ask, just ask :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's very strange, I don't know what would cause you to suddenly not be able to see page categories. Perhaps someone at WP:VPT could help you more than I can on that front. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Skin change? Categories show up in different places depending on the user's skin. Jorm (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Real name username opinion?

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

I left a comment there. You're correct that when I started editing Wikipedia I used a pseudonym. I didn't exactly choose to become this public about who I am in real life—I was doxed about ten years ago now, and ultimately decided there was no putting that cat back in the bag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I was a little surprised by your comment there. I registered this account under my real name a long time ago, but it was actually your user page that convinced me to be fully open about my real-life identity, e.g. linking to other profiles and adding a photo, given that I know you work in much riskier areas and you've experienced a hundred times worse harassment because of Wikipedia than I have. If you don't mind me asking, is it a case of making the best of a bad situation for you? Would you advise new users to try to remain completely anonymous? – Joe (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: It's difficult for me to say whether I might have eventually chosen to connect my Wikipedia account to my real life identity, had the choice been left entirely up to me. I might well have—there are some things I very much enjoy about being public about who I am, and in some ways I am actually glad that I have been public with my identity as long as I have (though, obviously, not glad about what led to it). But anonymity served me well for a while, and I can confidently say I would've remained anonymous for longer if it had been entirely up to me.

It was scary having my identity revealed when it was. I was a freshman in college, people knew where I lived, and I knew that my actions on-wiki could very easily impact my entire future career, which had not even begun yet. It's easier now than it was then, for a handful of reasons: I have a stable job with an employer who is remarkably understanding about the weirdness they sometimes encounter as a result of employing me, for example. But for a long time I avoided editing in the topic areas I do now (American politics, online extremism, gender and sexuality, etc.) because I knew it could have very real, negative effects. It still can (and has, I'm sure), but I am in a much better place to bear those. And there are still things that I have to think about as a result of it that probably never cross the mind of many people who are not in my position: "can something in the background of a photo I posted to Twitter be used to triangulate my location?" "is there a chance that if I mention my partner's name in a casual conversation with colleagues on Slack, someone I work with might divulge that information to those on the Internet who would like to know?" "do I need to ask this friend not to tag me in a photo in case someone targets her for harassment knowing she knows me?"

Regarding the recommendation for new users: yes, I would recommend they remain anonymous, at least at first. I suspect few (if any) longterm members of this community can confidently say that they knew exactly the areas of the project in which they'd be active at the moment they signed up, or that they understood the very specific risks associated with being an active Wikipedian (with or without a known identity). It is easy to decide later and with a full understanding of these things that you would like to become public about who you are in real life; certainly easier than trying to take back the decision to use your real name as a username. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacob Wohl

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

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

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

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

Well, it wasn't. Please review WP:CIVIL. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It has been 76 years since the end of WWII. Combat veterans would have mostly been 20 to 30 years old at that time. Making them in their late 90s at best at this time. Even now there are relatively few of them left alive and few of them can expect to live another decade. --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

And I'm sorry. It's just that I regretted contributing (a bit) to the article due to my intense hatred of the show. So I decided to vandalize the page as revenge for its existence (and my few good contributions). Even though I am the IP address that vandalises the article a lot, I have actually contributed a few times. I added the image, which I spotted on Wikimedia Commons one day. I created the characters section (even though I deliberately did not add the correct info in it) and improved the infobox a bit. I just want you to know that I am sorry, and I will never do it again. The IP address is shared, and sometimes I am accused of doing edits that I never did. Sometimes I wish I could edit as a registered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.225.243.215 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Georget2004

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

@Georget2004: I reverted your edit because it was poorly sourced, including to an opinion piece and to several questionably reliable publications. Our neutral point of view policy requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis mine). It doesn't mean reporting any and all views, regardless of prominence or source quality.

I also note that you have added this content several times before (Special:Contributions/Georget2004) and have been reverted by several editors who have concerns about the neutrality/weight you are giving this information:

• 21 March addition: removed 20 April by User:SincereScience, summary "Removed political bias section, info in section is longer relevant (national figures called on Cuomo to resign about a week after the cited op-ed was published)"
• 11 August addition: removed the same day by Firefangledfeathers, summary "this is not criticism of the movement, but of Democrats"
• 21 August addition: removed 26 August by 2600:1700:e4e0:5c00:20e6:df69:d075:75cc, summary "Removed horse rap."
• 27 August addition: removed 10 September by -sche, summary "this section was recently moved, but can actually be dropped, as it's poorly written - full of grammatical and punctuation errors - and obviously incorrect / outdated; federal congresspeople and the nation's president said he should go, so saying 'no national figures' is ... out of date, if it was ever true. maybe someone could rewrite it like "Initially there were accusations of political bias, as no national figures condemned C. until X days later when the president did.""
• 13 September addition: removed 13 September by me, subject of this discussion
• 13 September addition (#2): removed 13 September by Writ Keeper, summary "Neither the townhall piece nor the JMU piece are reliable sources. The Guardian one is, but is not enough to sustain this entire section."
• 13 September addition (#3): removed 13 September by me, summary "stop warring this content into the page and discuss on the talk page. multiple editors have raised concerns with your edit; WP:BRD"

You need to discuss your suggested additions on the talk page, rather than just repeatedly warring it into the page. See WP:BRD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Block on Boodlesthecat

Hi Gorilla Warfare,

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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