User talk:GorillaWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
August 2018 – present

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

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

Hi Molly,

I made the change to Norman Sheil due to his passing Oct 26th. He is a personal friend of mine so I knw the information to be accurate. His obituary will be posted in the coming days. Thank you

Mary Godak (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mary Godak: I am so sorry for the loss of your friend. Unfortunately we'll have to wait for the obituary to be published before that information can be added to Wikipedia, since we require published reliable sources to verify information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mary Godak: Just letting you know that I've updated the article now that obituaries have been published. Again, I'm so sorry for the loss of your friend. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Molly, thank you for helping me with this change, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Godak (talkcontribs) 16:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Feasibility of getting a diff removed from the "findings of fact" of an old ArbCom case?[edit]

Hey! I was wondering about whether it would be possible to get this diff, currently diff 85 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88, removed? I am not sure if the diff was presented publicly as evidence during the proceedings, but had I seen it I definitely would have questioned its relevance before the case concluded. It was not about Catflap08 or anyone else involved in the case, and actually predates my conflicts with any of them by well over a year; it was brought on by frustration with the targeted editor, who was apparently defending a site-banned stalker of mine who was, at the time, actively posting my personal information (real name, parents' home address, etc.) at various places on the site, as well as multiple off-wiki fora, and the targeted editor continued defending them despite being made aware of this, apparently either because of an unrelated dispute with me or just for fun. I'm not going to defend my lashing out in the manner that I did, but I would have liked a chance to directly address it and point out its irrelevance to the case, and I don't think it's fair to have it permanently enshrined in the ArbCom findings of fact completely devoid of its original context. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Shit. I hadn't noticed you weren't currently an Arbitrator. I'm not sure if you want to advise me on the matter anyway. I chose to contact you basically for no reason other than your having been the drafter of the proposed decision, but I wouldn't for a second assume you still remember what your thought process was when you chose to include that diff three years ago, so I wouldn't mind just retracting the above and posting it on the talk page of someone who could directly affect a change (or possibly disclosing the full context, which as implied above involves my personal information, by email). Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Hijiri 88, GW may no longer be an Arb, but I would certainly trust her opinion on such matters, so I wouldn't say you've chosen the wrong person. As it happens, I am a current arbitrator, and while I wasn't one during that case, I hope I'll be able to help out a bit. The diff in question was raised in the evidence page, 168 by CurtisNaito, as part of a pattern of behaviour, which is how it appears in the final decision. Generally, I would suggest it really isn't worth fighting over one diff on an Arbcom case 3 years ago, as it's far better to move onwards. If you wish to address the issue, however, I would normally suggest this sort of thing be raised at WP:ARCA, but given that there is private information involved, can I suggest that you email the Arbitration committee with your request? WormTT(talk) 11:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that somewhat complicates matters. If I recall correctly, I was actively avoiding reacting to the evidence and commentary added by CurtisNaito, whom I considered to have followed me to an ArbCom case about a dispute that didn't involve him, and I believed the Committee would see things the same way and weigh his evidence accordingly. (I obviously don't hold it against the 2015 ArbCom, let alone the current Arbs, for not doing so.) Curtis having been the one who added it means I probably didn't even read the comment to which it was attached until just now. I realized shortly after the case closed that not responding to Curtis's evidence was probably one of the stupidest decisions I ever made on Wikipedia, which was what brought on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (May 2016) and an unpublished request that the fact that Curtis was hounding me be added to the findings of fact. Given later developments at ANI with which I was not involved (I was pinged a few times), an extended discussion of whether Curtis was hounding me and whether his evidence should be weighted accordingly feels somewhat inappropriate. I'll probably think about this a bit more and get back to you guys: it's too messy now to bother with it if it's just removing a single diff, and I'm guessing your advice above doesn't necessarily apply to the whole cat and caboodle that I didn't think would be relevant. The private information is not a central part to the hounding issue, but I would probably be more comfortable discussing off-wiki anyway. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with the case, it was during the period that I'd pretty much sworn off Arbcom matters and while I've generally reviewed it, I've not done so in depth. I will say that generally committee members are likely to be reluctant to modifying findings without good reason, as they're generally (for want of a better word) explaining the committee's thought processes for the remedies, so ARCAs and email equivalents should generally be focussed on the remedy. That said, if it's particularly bothering you, explain why - you can only ask. WormTT(talk) 13:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Heya Hijiri88. Worm has given some good advice here and I agree with him. I would be hesitant to remove the edit even if I was still on the committee—partly because it was a part of the decision and partly because removing those things tends only to draw more attention to them. But it's also not my decision anymore, so if you still want it to be removed, your best bet is ARCA or an email to the Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey GW. Thank you for your reply. As I said to Worm above, I'm having serious second thoughts about what I said above anyway, even without the issue of red tape involved in changing the "part of the decision" and drawing more attention to them, but that it would involve addressing the CurtisNaito issue, and if I was going to go through that I might as well ask for an amendment to say CurtisNaito has hounded Hijiri88, which would be easy to prove but would be completely pointless when the editor in question left the community more than two years ago. Getting my one remaining sanction lifted would make it pretty unlikely anyone would ever look at those diffs again anyway, but I'm not even that pushed about that. I know how to appeal sanctions, anyway, so I'll probably just jump right into that rather than coming here or to someone else's talk page first if/when that time comes. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.


  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi GW, do you have the time and inclination to run for ArbCom again? We need good people, and there is a severe paucity of admin candidates (only one admin candidate to fill six seats). Please consider serving again if you are able. The deadline is in a few days. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. Hopefully more candidates will appear as the deadline approaches. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 for running again - we all know how much fun it was.. Face-grin.svg - TNT 💖 16:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Drmies and I were just expressing our disappointment in the lack of women running this year, so I am very glad to see you put yourself forward again. Best of luck. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and good luck to you two as well! :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
GW, you know how much I appreciated working with you: you are the best. I'm a little sad because you'll get twice or three times as many votes as me, but then again, you deserve the community's trust. I don't mind losing to you. Losing to Kelapstick, that's another matter...but we'll always have bacon and square milk jugs. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought milk came in bags where k-stick lives. Perhaps I have been misinformed. Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender, in parts of Canada (mainly eastern) milk is sold in bags, as well as cartons and jugs. However once upon a time I lived in rural Nevada where they actually packaged milk from the local dairy farm in square jugs (you may remember the square milk jug craze of ‘09). At the time I could buy a gallon of 2% for $2.25. The lowest I have ever paid. Thus ends my TED talk “Dairy Distrubution and its Effects on Wikipedia.” —kelapstick(bainuu) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
🤔 I'm trying to think if I've ever seen a not-square milk jug. I've been drinking milk since a fair bit before 2009 and it's always either come in a square cardboard carton (like this, but in English) or in a squareish plastic jug (like this). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Our milk containers are the same as yours (notwithstanding the bags), but a Square milk jug is a container unto itself. The article is one I created, with some help. —kelapstick(bainuu) 03:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The existence of niche articles like that is one thing I love so much about Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
And if the article isn’t there, write it yourself! —kelapstick(bainuu) 03:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
TetraPak klassic mjölk Tekniska museet 2008.jpg

───────────────────────── Wow, that Square milk jug is one fugly motherf*cker (the jug, not the article). It looks like something gasoline should come in. Anyway, this conversation made me flash on the milk containers in my primary school cafeteria. I may be dating myself, but they came in pyramidal tetrapaks (like the one on the right, but in English). These were awesome because the straws fit so tightly inside the strawhole that you could inflate the thing with air, remove your mouth, and milk would squirt all over everything. Ah, the days. Also, there were more than the usual number of episodes of milk coming out of people's noses, perhaps due to that tight-straw inflation thing plus laughing.

So ends my nostalgic journey into 1960s' primary school cafeterias. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You're reminding me we used to get popsicle blocks in that shape in elementary school! No idea why. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
My daughter was noticibly disturbed when I told her the story of a kid throwing a carton of chocolate milk into a ceiling fan during a high school food fight. I haven’t gotten an angry call from the principal (yet). —kelapstick(bainuu) 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So Excite![edit]

Yay that you're running for ARBCOM! --Jorm (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for thoroughly answering my questions regarding your candidacy for ArbCom. Thanking you here to avoid clutter at that page. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please Clarify Edit System[edit]

@GorillaWarfare: I seem to be somehow misusing the Wikipedia history restore feature in a way which is aggravating you see edit coment:

I began editing on top of

Between when you posted: And now.

What is the protocol for going to the talk, I know there's the 3 revert rules, but I understood that to apply to reverts, not rewrites. If I rewrite the section, after others have re written the section, the Wikipedia editor does not warn, so I figured this was perfectly acceptable. How should I actually be interpreting the edit warring rules?

@Ethanpet113: The edit warring policy clarifies that A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. If you look at the discussion at Talk:Linux#New section "Code of Conduct Controversy", you'll note that Ahunt has written Okay it seems three other editors have now evaluated it and the section has been removed, so I think that constitutes an editing consensus. You should discuss on that talk page whether the code of conduct and Linus's hiatus should be added back to the page, since current consensus seems to agree it should not be included, and only re-add it once the discussion has reached consensus.
Also, when you comment on talk pages, you should sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end, or hitting the signature button in the edit toolbar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:Oh sorry for some reason my mind treated this talk page as different from an article space talk space and I forgot to sign '_'. Thanks for the clarification. If I want to discuss the specific nature of the article as it existed in some revision, is it appropriate to copy a chunk of it verbatim to the talk page, or is there a better way, e.g. should I create a stub in my Userspace, and link it to the talk discussion? Also while I'm here is there a shorthand for linking a revision or do I just have to copy the whole article URL?Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Any of those options is fine; you can copy it over (although if it's very long that can get unweildy), copy it to a userspace page, or just link to the diff. I usually link to diffs by copying the link because it's quick, and you can format it like so: [ diff] to make it show up in a shorter form as diff. There is also a {{diff}} template you can use, though I don't find it saves much effort. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


So I did make a mistake deleting that part of the wiki, but thanks for restoring it back to the original form.I really meant to add on some thoughts in my mind.And another thing, why were you in the pulsar wiki page? were you trying to know more about pulsars just like me? maybe i don't know

p.s. It took me over a MINUTE to type that i don't know why. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8A00:4C50:888A:CB5A:60E5:EB31 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just reviewing recent changes to all articles on Wikipedia and happened across yours. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


Their edits seem to be an attempt to contribute, but they seem to simply not be aware of zh.wikipedia. Is there maybe a way to direct them to that project, rather than a continuous barrage of warnings they don't understand, and potentially an unnecessary block? I can understand the difficulty, as I don't write in Chinese, and don't anybody that does. Is it really fair to barrage with warns and blocks they won't understand though? dross (c · @) 23:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dross: Thank you for pointing that out! I've added {{welcomeen-zh}} to their talk page, which welcomes them and informs them of zhwiki (and is translated into Chinese). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


see that you don't link your Wikipediocracy profile over here, in which case it is impossible to ask something related of your comments over there (about a very recent issue) at our ACEPage, without felling foul of OUTING Guidelines. Would you mind providing a link? This request is somewhat awkward (or might be even perceived as stupid) and feel free to decline, if you are not comfortable.WBGconverse 11:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thought I'd linked it before but I might be wrong. Either way, I'm "GorillaWarfare" on Wikipediocracy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No non-free images?[edit]

I am not aware of the rule on the 2014 Isla Vista killings for non-free image use; I thought images like the one I uploaded could be used in a case like this as a means to identify the perpetrator? --NowIsntItTime 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime: If you look at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings the first thing on the page is a notice saying A non-free image of the perpetrator is deleted per FFD. Please do not use copyrighted images of that person. Before reusing the image, please contact the administrator who deleted the image. If that administrator is unable to undelete the image, a deletion review must then be initiated. As consensus was achieved to delete the image in the past, new consensus must be reached to overturn that decision before the image can be re-uploaded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I should have seen that. When I looked at the "DO NOT ADD IMAGE" notice, I for some reason thought it was talking about free images. This won't happen again -NowIsntItTime 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem! Thanks for understanding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)