User talk:GorillaWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
April 2019 – present

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news


  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Biblical quotations[edit]

It's a ludicrous restriction. He's looking for something to take offence at. Is the Prayer Book out too? The Apocrypha? Kipling and Eliot? Abraham Lincoln? The Byrds? Half the time people quote the Bible they don't even know that they are. Don't play his game for him. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I said in my comment to you that I agree it is not realistic to expect people to avoid biblical references in general conversation. But if someone has just said they do not like it, there is no reason to quote the Bible right back at them in your next breath. You went out of your way to find a Bible reference to throw back at him, which appears to be deliberately antagonistic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't go out of my way, they were lying in the path to be tripped over or picked up. He is being downright unreasonable, and you shouldn't be encouraging him. He raised the issue of how an atheist would respond, and he got just that - an atheist responding, and in doing so trying to point out just how unreasonable he was being. I don't like being told what I can't quote - does my "I don't like it" not have the same worth as his? It's a stupid road to go down. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
"Discussions at ANI can have both positive and negative outcomes for the person who starts them." Look how easy it was to say what you wanted to say (arguably more clear, actually—I'm not even 100% sure this is what you were trying to convey) without referring to double-edged swords or pointing out that such a reference is drawn from the Bible. Chris.sherlock is clearly upset about a discussion he interpreted as threatening, and while it was reasonable to say what you said about the difficulty of avoiding such references, making a reference of your own was not needed (nor was telling him to "use another language"). In my opinion it is worth going a little out of our way to be kind where possible, even towards someone we've disagreed with in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't, or rather won't (because I am not everything he's said about me), say just what the problem is. If I explained it in full then it would make things much worse - for him much more than for me. It's a profoundly frustrating situation. Let's just say that "disagreed with in the past" is one way of saying it - and one which I think is hideously biased (I am sure through ignorance) against me. Do read The Gods of the Copybook Headings. DuncanHill (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Understandable, and I do appreciate you being delicate on that point. You are absolutely correct as far as ignorance—I have no idea what the history between the two of you is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've slept on this, and I'm pretty sure his complaints about the quotation are simply a return to his old ways. This comment about his well-earnt reputation by another user pretty much sums it up. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I am only very vaguely familiar with this person, and so won't try to speak to whether this is a return to old ways or not. But my general opinion, which has not changed overnight, is that if someone requests to not be spoken to in some way or another, it is reasonable to at least try to accommodate their request at least in immediate conversation (again, I am not saying everyone should be expected to remember this preference in perpetuity). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Samantha Smith[edit]

Thank you. Wikipedia seems to be a target for those well to the left who prefer "USian" to American, "sex worker" to prostitute and etc. and will swarm articles on here. Could you please check the article on Samantha Smith's TV series Lime Street, just to be on the safe side? PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@PAustin4thApril1980: Just took a look and don't see anything that looks like vandalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Recent Changes[edit]

Hello GW. I see you're currently active at Recent Changes. So, I wonder: do you have any idea why the really useful feature has recently been removed, whereby clicking 'diff' opens a new tab to show that diff, leaving the Live Update of the Recent Changes still functioning? I see we've gone back to the old system, whereby clicking a diff takes one away from the Recent Changes display and takes you directly to that one page's diff. This is bad enough and inefficient enough in desktop view on a PC, but it makes it impossible to easily monitor and revert vandalism using a mobile phone. As there's no Recent Changes talk page for me to moan at, I'm not sure where to post this, apart perhaps at WP:VP. (The irony is that I recently took part in an ORES research study looking at improving how we can monitor and report vandalism and how Recent Changes works, and this reversion back to the old way really is a massive retrograde step.) Any thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I should also add that the 'open new window' function has disappeared if you now click either the article link or the editor link. Again, these are really retrograde changes, which I should like to see reversed. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I'd ask at WP:VPT, because I have no idea. For what it's worth, I've been Huggling, which does not involve the recent changes page—I don't tend to use the recent changes page and so am not really familiar with what you're describing. Hopefully someone at VPT has more insight into the change than I do! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Apologies if this isn't what you're looking for, but you can get this functionality back by adding:
mw.hook('wikipage.content').add(function ()
to your common.js page. HTH, Writ Keeper  03:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to you and to Writ Keeper for your helpful replies. Gosh, I wish I understood how to write scripts - it would be so useful, but it seems a completely closed book to me. I would welcome the same functionality for my Watchlist, too. Not sure if that'll do the same thing there, too? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe it should, yep. Writ Keeper  17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 NFL playoffs[edit]

Hey. I see you're currently editing. Could you take a look at the situation happening on that article? There's a bunch of reverts going back and forth, and a request for page protection as well. I'd put a stop to the madness myself, but I feel somewhat involved. Thanks. Useight (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Useight: I've just protected the page, though it's a little difficult for me to suss out which revision is the proper one to revert to. Any chance you can fix that part? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I straightened it out. Useight (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gorillawarfare, is this how I have a chat with you?[edit]

Thanks for your advice! I'd like to chat about the Michael Savage page and neutrality. Still figuring out how to communicate. Thanks.

TheyoungmanandtheC (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheyoungmanandtheC: You almost had it the first two times, you just accidentally wrote your message inside of a template rather than at the end of the talk page. In the future you can click "New section" and it's quite a bit easier (instructions, though it looks like you figured it out). Anyway, what are you hoping to talk to me about? You can click edit and respond directly under where I'm writing to you now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, hi! I'm going to write something kind of long here. In two parts. First "Background" then "Questions"


I'm hoping to talk to you about the neutrality question regarding the Michael Savage page. I'm a lifelong liberal who's recently taken a more conservative turn, and I appreciate that Savage is not always on the predictably "right wing" side of things. He's against foreign adventurism/regime change, for one example. Strongly opposed Trump bombing Syria. That's not mentioned in the article, and I'd like to add it. As a conservationist, he's devoted shows to animal conservation, and has written a poetic exploration about how a bull feels when it's being killed in the bullring. That would be highly quotable. He's also a moderate on gun control, and that should be added to the article.

His influences: The article says "Barry Goldwater" because one person wrote one article in which Savage said one time that he'd support a Barry Goldwater type of candidate today. But apart from that one case he really has very little to say about Barry Goldwater. Never mentions him on the show. On the show he talks JFK and MLK and Plato (the parable of the cave) and Lao-Tze and Kahlil Gibran and Mark Twain. A neutral "encyclopedia" article has an obligation to tell the truth about someone, yes? And that truth should be fact-based not opinion-based, true?

What's more true than what he actually says? I think you'd agree because his current article has some really LENGTHY quotes! Also, the problem for a conservative, is that if you block conservative news sources (e.g., Breitbart) and only allow readers to know what the New York Times and SF Gate think of someone, well that makes it hard to be neutral. There are studies showing that NYT is liberal, as are Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters.

The article goes into PTSD and Autism at length, and yes he said controversial things in those areas. I would like to add to the article some examples of him speaking sympathetically about depression, suicide, bullying, and sexual abuse. He encourages listeners to call with their stories and it makes for some very compelling audio. Readers of the "encyclopedia" of Michael Savage deserve to know the truth about this.

Having written 44 books, there's a WEALTH of "encyclopedic" knowledge about Savage to to be found in his own writings. A neutral article would have quotes from "Secrets of Fijian Medicine" which includes soaring poetic descriptions of jungles, rivers, villages, and people, and philosophical musings about the nature of biology and culture. His short stories such as "My Silent Brother" (about Jerome) will rip your heart out. And his political treatises are also good sources for what he REALLY THINKS ... rather than what he said to a New Yorker interviewer on one Saturday back in 2007.

This is a richly experienced and very nuanced man, whom the current wikipedia article reduces to a cartoon. Yes I understand wikipedia is not intended to be a biography. If I were composing it from scratch I wouldn't have lengthy quotes, and I tried removing one. But it got reverted. So ... lengthy quotes it is. But there have to be some complimentary TRUE ones as well as the insulting ones.

Finally, I'd like to point out that people evolve. An important part of the "encyclopedia" of Michael Savage should be that, at 77 years old now, he too has evolved. Most of the current article is devoted to events that happened prior to 2009. That's 11-20 years ago! The article badly needs bringing up to date, and my strategy would be to do that by leaving the earlier material alone (if that's what you demand, since you revert my changes) but making the recent material more balanced. I would then structure the article chronologically.


Question 1 is about quotes from his writings. I want to use but not if your'e going to strike them. Question 2: Can his quotes be used as citations? Again dearth of "neutral" news articles is limiting. Question 3: What is your policy (or where can I read) about links to video and audio?


@TheyoungmanandtheC: I'll try to answer your questions, but as far as your commentary on the article, that may be better suited to a discussion at Talk:Michael Savage. Aside from two recent edits of mine after you left a comment on my talk page mentioning the article, my only interactions at the article have been to briefly revert vandalism, so I'm really not that familiar with Savage or the edit history of the article. You might have better luck starting a discussion at the talk page, where active editors of that page will see it and can weigh in.
To your question one: you can include short quotes to his writings if they are particularly illustrative to the article, but we try to quote sparingly (see WP:QUOTE). To your question two: only in very rare circumstances. The relevant policies there are WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. You can probably guess why we're cautious about this kind of thing—if for some reason there was a Wikipedia article about me, and I had a radio show on which I said I'm the queen of the world, we wouldn't want to just go update my Wikipedia article to say I'm the queen of the world without a third-party source to confirm. But on some non-controversial facts where there's no reason to believe the subject of the article would be untruthful (for example, if I said when my birth date was and there was no other reason to believe otherwise) they can be used—though we still prefer third-party sources. As for question 3, you're looking for WP:External links.
To address a few things you mention in your "background" section:
  • A neutral "encyclopedia" article has an obligation to tell the truth about someone, yes? And that truth should be fact-based not opinion-based, true? You might be interested in reading the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. Your questions are common ones, and you might find the Wikipedia editing community's stance on this a bit surprising, but hopefully the essay helps elucidate.
  • Regarding your points on wanting to add info about Savage speaking sympathetically, you will need third-party sources for this. Listening to Savage's shows and coming to the conclusion that he's sympathetic is absolutely your prerogative, but without any third-party reliable sources reaching the same conclusion, it would be original research to add that to the article.
  • if you block conservative news sources We do not block conservative news sources, we block unreliable sources. Plenty of conservative publications are acceptable to use as sources, but Breitbart has such a poor history of fact-checking that the Wikipedia editing community took the somewhat rare step of blacklisting it entirely.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2020 (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.Clovermoss (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've sent you an email. Thanks!Jp7311 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Communist propaganda" editor[edit]

He did that at another article. I've blocked him as NOTHERE. He hardly ever edits, mostly harmless stuff, so if he appeals and promises to stop, I don't care. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of My Favorite Murder episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Am (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20 classics of the 80s album.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:20 classics of the 80s album.jpg. 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) 03:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)