Jump to content

User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:871:237:2af5:ad5b:2170:74f:ce7d (talk) at 18:15, 3 November 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

File:Enel X logo.png listed for discussion

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

File:Cooking for Dads logo.jpg listed for discussion

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

Intellectual dark web

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

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

Tarrio

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

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

DYK for Actual play

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

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

YGM

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real name username opinion?

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

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

Your GA nomination of Jacob Wohl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from Georget2004

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

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

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

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

Block on Boodlesthecat

Hi Gorilla Warfare,

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Meow ;->

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

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

Appeal on Boodlesthecat sanction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haitian refugee crisis

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

Nicholas Lim

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

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

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

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

A Project Veritas issue

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

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

October 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Your GA nomination of Jacob Wohl

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

Report a COI

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

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

Thank you for creating an article on the NCIRS!

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

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

Mersenne prime

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

Editing Issues

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

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

Question

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

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

November 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

DYK for National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance

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

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

DYK for Jacob Wohl

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

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

Boo!

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

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion you may be blocked from editing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare&oldid=1053407641"