This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have removed the PROD notice, I believe a WP:AFD is required for deletion of this article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref your post on my talk page; yes, you are missing the fact that he has (a) not requested a username unblock in correct format and (b) further down the page I have given him what I hope was a very helpful welcome message and some freetext help as well. I am very happy that he be unblocked; he simply needs to create a new username in the manner clearly set out on his talkpage.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why a username unblock request is unacceptable here. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. The point is that he expressed ignorance as to how to do it, which is the whole basis of the comments on his talk page. If you, in addition to me and the blocking admin, wish to advise him please feel free. Please note that a procedural decline just means "OK, but please do it correctly".--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, because clearly I sent the wrong message, I have unblocked him.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Hopefully he will read the various advice messages posted on his talk page.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty; I closed the helpme with some additional instructions. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One user is cyberstalking and reverting my edits in Wikipedia. I am using reverse of my Wiki name only to avoid constant cybertalking. I tried to raise the issue but nobody has responded. My nearly 50+ edits have been reverted. Can please review and advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=566762984#Mass_changes JvcDell (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be continued at AN/I, not taken to some random administrator's talk page. I see that Sitush and Insulam Simia have responded there; now it's your turn. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you. Oldgrounds (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well sorry i don't know what is wikipedia could you explain174.103.190.11 (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting at WP:TUTORIAL. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article "Guelph Community Christian School" deleted when it is very similar in form and content to any one of the 311 articles in the category Public High Schools in Oregon? Broadcastinglive2 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no indication that the school met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Public and accredited high schools tend to be inherently notable, but Guelph doesn't appear to be a public school, nor do I see any indication that it's accredited. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly biased statement! What makes some public school inherently notable?

Guelph Community Christian School has been in existence for over 50 years. It is the largest and oldest independent school in the city of Guelph. It is registered as a private school with the province. It is registered as a non-profit corporation with the province. It is registered as a charitable organization with the federal government. Its teachers are registered with the Ontario College of Teachers. It has a unique governance system that involves parents on the Board of Directors. It has almost 250 students. It has an Olympic athlete among its graduates. Its building has been given a heritage restoration award by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Its music program has been recognized with a gold standard by the Kiwanis Music Festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadcastinglive2 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the essay Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), "To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." You can also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for common outcomes of school deletion discussions. Although we do not have an official policy on the notability of schools, these are the things we tend to go by. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I respect that you are applying Wiki policy/procedure fairly; however, as someone who has worked in independent school for over 35 years, dare I say given my life to them, I am very disappointed in Wiki's establishment position on this issue. Broadcastinglive2 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't see the original version of the article, I am speculating a bit. However, if your characterization of the school is accurate, Broadcastinglive2, then it should be a relatively easy matter to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources showing that the school is notable. Ask the deleting administrator to userfy the article, rewrite it in a neutral tone avoiding all promotional or advertising language, and move it to main encyclopedia space again, when the draft article is well-referenced. Feel free to ask me to review the article when it is ready. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you declined a CSD A7 tag which I understand. But the article is highly closely related to the author which is Conflict of Interest. The article also doesn't have a neutral point of view and has a "promotional" tone in the first edit the author stated, "In 2012, he was named as among the top 1% most viewed (out of 200 million) LinkedIn.com profiles." Autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged as stated on WP:AB.

See edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Edward_Keim&diff=567206076&oldid=567198472 EuroCarGT 03:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the author's involvement with the subject, the article does not meet criterion A7. It's also not unambiguously promotional so as to be deleteable per G11. If you think it should be deleted, either PROD it or take it to AfD. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then! Thank you for your feedback!! EuroCarGT 03:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GorillaWarfare. I thought that since you're an admin, you'd like to know that a user named Midas56 is engaging in an edit war on the Macrophilia page. He continuously changes the data so that it only applies to his sexual fantasies, and removes facts. He has already been given several warnings and will not heed by them. Sage94 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the user has been warned, and has not edited since that warning, so there's really no further action to take at this point. In the future, you should report these things to the edit warring noticeboard. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for adding a new section, I don't really know how to add a section to another section that's above a newer section, if you understand what that means. Anyways, Midas has reverted edits again despite his warnings and my attempts to bring him to the page's talk page.--Sage94 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the correct section. You can either click [edit] by the section you want to edit, or click "Edit" at the top of the page and add your comments to the correct section. As for Midas, I've given him a very clear last warning. If he reverts again, I will block. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to contact you if he does. Thank you, by the way.--Sage94 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm also watching the page. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GorillaWarfare! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue VII - August 2013

---

Hello from Hong Kong, and the Wikimania DevCamp! Just a quick bulletin to update everyone on recent goings-on:

• There was a Wikimedia blog post about our experience at the Open Help Conference.
• Based on discussions at the Open Help Conference, Seeeko, Ocaasi and the wub have drafted a series of guidelines for writing and improving help pages.
• There is now also a system in place for assessing help pages by quality and importance. See Wikipedia:Help Project/Assessment for more details and the two scales we are using.
• A project collaboration has been started, the first one is focusing on the above mentioned Assessment. Discussions about this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Current collaboration (and the next).
• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions was merged into Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions
• A couple of other mergers have been proposed:
  • Wikipedia:Questions and Wikipedia:Requests
  • Wikipedia:How to help and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page
• Help:Introduction to talk pages and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines have both been overhauled and updated to use the new tutorial design.

Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter.

If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

greetings to u gorilla, i would like o become your adopteein wikipedia to be an active member of wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAYATHRI ARJUNAN (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything specific you want to learn about? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found your listing at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. I must say that "Gorilla" is the last thing that came to mind when I saw your pic. PYT (pretty young thing) seems to be a more appropriate username for you.  :-)

Anyhow, a couple things (other than the pic) caught my attention, that I thought I should contact you on. You seem to be very experienced, and presumably have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of how Wikipedia's evolved over the years, you're well-read on the tangled web of policies, and you've got bot experience.

I'm a tech-savvy user, myself, but a total Wikipedia newbie. I actually had a bit of a nasty experience starting here, and found myself amongst a bunch of cynical, grumpy old users, who ultimately lead me to ask in Teahouse the rather pointed question "Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users??" The responses both there and on my talk page have assured me that the answer is yes, but that folks are well aware the current new user process is broken and in need of repair.

I apologize in advance, my comments tend to be long and rambling, as I was pretty much thinking my ideas through as I wrote, but the short story is that I'm starting to form a proposal for a NEW new user experience that hopefully will prevent future newbies from going through what I've been through.

I am envisioning taking our existing new user resources and not so much changing them, but rather, arranging them into a consistent, comprehensive new user toolkit, and integrating several separate projects into a coordinated meta-project, if you will.

Certainly your bot experience caught my attention, as my experience involved one overly aggressive bot, and I've been informed of another bot project underway specifically aimed at new users. I do have programming experience, though I've gotten a bit out of date, and my C has gotten rusty over the years. But I am quite technical, and I'm sure will take to whatever is being used these days, if someone knowledgeable can point me in the right direction.

Oh, yes, you also mentioned anti-vandalism. Of course, I understand that is a problem, and the effort to fight it also winds up, from time to time, (cough, cough) getting in the way of supporting a well-meaning new user. I'd like to know more about the issues you face from your perspective, so I can better understand the challenges and needs you have, and bring that perspective to the new user side of the table, and try to balance the two sets of needs a little better against each other.

Oh, and of course, as I said, I am a newbie in terms of Wikipedia, so I'm still trying to make sense of the mark-up, the tools and the policies that less friendly users expect newbies to psychically pick-up instantaneously.

BTW, I do speak fluent HTML and CSS, and while Wiki mark-up is clearly its own language, I'm quite familiar with the underlying concepts.

So ... all that said ... I'd love to hear your comments. You seem to have a lot of valuable experience to bring to the table, and I have an outsider's out-of-the-box view and recent newbie experience that I think could be genuinely useful in an effort to create a NEW new user experience that I hope will help improve the overall atmosphere around here in many ways. The more that can be done to encourage good new users, discourage vandals, and reduce the amount of newbie mistakes that make old-timers so grumpy and cynical, the better everyone will be.

So, what do you say? You game? I'd be happy to work with you whatever way is most convenient and productive for you. Whether that is collaboration, adoption, or simply offering feedback every now and then. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

GabrielD2 (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for contacting me; your ideas seem interesting. Could you elaborate a little more on your ideas? It might help me give you more specific feedback.

If you're interested in writing bots, you can write them in whatever language you prefer. Many of our bots are written in Python, because there is the pywikipediabot framework that many bots build off of. That said, if you wanted to write a bot in C, you should feel free. WP:Creating a bot gives some instruction on how the whole bot process works. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks for the interest. Right now, I'm in the process of trying to gather the links, comments, and ideas together, and to draft a single introduction and overview. Currently, everything is in discussion form, all over the place, but mostly on Teahouse and my talk page. I'm thinking it may take a few days to consolidate everything and polish it into a comprehensive overview. Once I've done that, I'll let you know. I expect to have another round of discussion about the ideas after it's been posted, and would like to have a broad mix of users, especially well-experienced users such as yourself, to bring in as many viewpoints and ideas together, and try to develop my proposals with as much input from a diverse group of users from the onset ... rather than develop the proposal and seek the input later. The latter approach tends to lead to ideas that are unbalanced in design, and the other interests are at the disadvantage of trying to minimize the damage from poor concept that's about to steamroller over them. So I'm looking to air out the issues and concerns before everything's cast in stone, if you will.

• As for bots, at the moment I'm not so much interested in writing them, but more getting a general understanding of what they are, how they're run / managed, how they interact with Wikipedia, etc. More the high-level overview, for now. I'll take a look at that page, and see if I can come up with more specific questions.

• Pardon my vagueness, as I said, I'm pretty much a Wikipedia newbie, myself, and one of the things that was mentioned as possibly being helpful is the adoption program. So, initially, that is what I was looking for, but as I said, there were many other things in your listing that made me say, Hmmm, here's a person I should get to know and work with, even if she doesn't adopt me. It seems like there's no specific adoption program, per se, each adopter seems to pretty much have their own approach and ideas as to what may be involved. Some seem to have some standardized formal program using a student-teacher model, while others seem to have a more informal mentor model ... if I'm not mistaken, you seem to be one of the latter. Being a former trainer, myself, I'd also like to get your thoughts about your ideas about training and your approach, and why you've taken that approach, rather than others. So, I realize I'm talking a bit out of all four sides of my mouth, as trainer, trainee, tech geek, newbie, all at the same time. No wonder you're confused. I am, too!  :-)

So ... give me a few days and I'll let you know when I have a more coherent presentation on my new user ideas. In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about your adoption program. Thanks again for your time and consideration.

GabrielD2 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I look forward to seeing your overview.

Bots on Wikipedia first go through an approval process, where a group of technically-skilled users called the Bot Approvals Group review both the bot's intended tasks and its implementation. Some bot functions are easy to approve: for example, sometimes large numbers of pages have had categories added to them in error, and bots run through to remove the categories. Other times, the bot's functions need a clear community consensus. Once the bot's tasks and code have been okayed by the BAG, the bot is usually approved for a trial run, where it will be allowed to make a set number of edits. The operator will set it to run these edits, and the edits will be inspected for errors. If everything is okay, the bot will usually be okayed for its proposed purpose and scope. You mention that "my experience involved one overly aggressive bot". Which bot was this? Perhaps ClueBot, or XLinkBot? We have a number of bots like this that are rather complex, very prolific, and tend to run into our newer users more frequently than others. Some bots are specifically programmed to look for types of edits made by new users. If you tell me the bot that you had an issue with, I could probably explain it more specifically.

As for my adoption, I tend to sort of toe the line between a more formal "school" model, and informal mentorship. If a user doesn't really know where xe wants to start, or doesn't have a particular area of interest on Wikipedia, I'll pull together a set of "lessons" and "quizzes" (see User:GorillaWarfare/Adopt/JustBerry). If they have other questions, I'll happily answer them and do a more informal mentorship. If they prefer one adoption style to another, I usually try to adapt. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, there! Well, today I didn't get anything done that I had expected, as I had a near fistfight break out on my user talk page. Had to calm 'em down, and set up a Debate Arena for them, so I can get them to play nice with each other. I was warned that my ideas about treating new users nicely was highly political, and I've just had the first eruption come out of the blue. So I'm starting to see what I was being warned about. No problem, I'll get them playing nice in a while, but it's going to delay my presentation a bit.

• My case was with ClueBot NG, who I affectionately refer to as the tin can. ("I am for all practical purposes foolproof and incapable of error.") I did file a file false positive report on it, and I don't expect it to return, but if it does, I'm going to WP:WHACK! it until it begs "Dave, stop. Please stop, Dave. Will you please stop, Dave? I'm a-fraid"

• Adoption ... so you take what we call a student-directed approach, as opposed to others who take a curriculum-directed approach. Honestly, for a volunteer project, with users coming in with a wide variety of experience and education, I have to whole-heartedly agree with you. Not that there's anything wrong with the more formal curriculum, but it's not for everyone. It all depends on your personal learning style and objectives. Personally, I'm leaning more towards the formal approach for the practical reason that I need to establish credibility and commitment to the project, if my new user ideas are to be taken seriously by certain groups of users. (Old-timers!) Hey ... aren't you an old-timer, yourself? That's odd, you don't look like one. Where's your grey hair and your snarl? Guess it's all in your attitude. A positive outlook and a friendly disposition keep you looking fresh and young, apparently.  :-) Anyhow, one point that was made was that some people may not take kindly to a newbie proposing changes, and may object solely on the basis that I'm a newbie, regardless of the merits of my ideas. So having some serious credentials to point to will be useful in shutting down that argument, cold. I also do want to get some broad experience beyond what I may normally do, myself, here, just so I can have the awareness and understanding of how different groups of users may be using Wikipedia in different ways, different reasons ... and that whatever solutions I propose takes their needs and preferences in mind, too. I'm continuing to uncover a bunch of new user resources, but the common theme I'm seeing is that they're all intended as a one-size-fits-nobody, monolithic (ta-daaaaaa! boom-boom! boom-boom! boom-boom!), single solution for everybody. Yet, as you were saying about your adoption program, there is no single description for a new user ... they all have their own unique needs, and if we don't respect those needs, we're not respecting them, either. So, you're a woman after my own heart, in that regard.

So, let's see what happens with my two bad boys on my talk page tonight, and I'll keep in touch. Thanks again!

GabrielD2 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. ClueBot NG is one of our most active bots, and due to the subjective nature of its edits, somewhat prone to error.

Are you looking for adoption from me? It seems your focus is on reforming the new editor interactions, and not so much on the more traditional types of editing. It makes me wonder if adoption would even be a valuable experience for you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, to be honest, I've been focusing on issues that you may have some input or interest in, rather than broader issues that may be outside your areas of expertise. I could go on a discussion on the differences between my people's version of French versus Metropolitan French, or the inherent problems of the French language that makes any form of machine translation virtually hopeless. Rather, I've been talking about those things with users who actually speak and translate French. The new user issue was not my original intent. It's something I fell into. I never expected that when I signed up, I'd be told to go ahead and edit an article without being given the slightest hint of how to do that, exactly. I had to guess and experiment, and when I thought I had done a good job, that tin can immediately accused me of vandalism. I've had a few other bad experiences which led me to wonder if this all was really worth the effort, and the response I got lead me to think that perhaps this was something I could help with, before more new users got the same shabby treatment I got. So now I've got a bunch of links to a disorganized batch of pages about everything under the sun, and I'm trying to sort through them, organize them, and figure out what pages I should be reading first. In the midst of that, I've got two oldtimers who wound up facing each other off on my talk page, and now, I'm getting a sense that you may not be interested in helping me. That's fine, of course, but disappointing. I understand that ultimately, it is your decision what projects you wish to take, and who you wish to work with. I guess that doesn't include me. I have to respect that. Thanks for your time, and the background info on bots, I do appreciate it.

Sincerely, GabrielD2 (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was revdel-ing this a mistake? -- tariqabjotu 17:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind; I see. It looked like the offensive edit had been removed before then, but it hadn't been. -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in the discussion on Talk:Chelsea Manning, I don't think you should be doing admin actions on that page

(Deletion log); 11:21 . . GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Chelsea Manning: content hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

(Deletion log); 11:21 . . GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Chelsea Manning: edit summary hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

(Deletion log); 11:20 . . GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Chelsea Manning: content hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

Surely another admin that is not involved can do those deletions without the appearance of impropriety? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments were so unequivocally inappropriate (and, for what it's worth, unrelated to the discussions) that I had no reservations in revision-deleting them. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt of that( I did not see the comments) , the problem is that I can't possibly verify that you didn't delete someone who simply disagred with you (I'm sure you didn't), but to me verification is everything, and admin delets are un-verifiable. It's a tough situation because you are watching the page and other admins are probably not and quick response is important, but can you understand how deletes by an admin involved in the discussion would make me (and probably other users) uncomfortable? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I'm able to view the deleted revisions and am uninvolved with that page, and without going into detail, can confirm that these deletions were entirely appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Seraphimblade I do appricate that, but as a policy issue I'm just uncomfertable with those edits in general. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'm happy to step back from any administrative actions on that page if you so wish, though I do plan to continue reading through the article text and fixing any inconsistent pronouns. Even if we've yet to agree on which pronoun should be used, they need to at least be consistent. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should do what you feel is best, obviously the community trusts you, they gave you admin, and I too trust you because of that, I'm just letting you know what I saw and how it could be interpreted. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a seperate note, is their a policy about this? If not there should be (Again, in my opinion) and where can I get discussion started? If there is, where is it, and can I comment? Again this is a general issue I just happened to catch you at it so you seem to be the best person to ask.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're looking for WP:INVOLVED? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at ChuckHeat's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the September drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you are willing to adopt newbies? I'm interested if you are willing to help me out. I have an article I was working on in my Sandbox and I want to make sure I'm on the right track.

After that, I want to help edit/fix articles, but not sure where to start. Thanks! Sonjaydewing (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'd be happy to adopt you. Were you hoping for a more "formal" adoption (consisting of adoption "lessons" like the ones at User:GorillaWarfare/Adopt/JustBerry) or a more informal one where you ask questions and I give advice where needed? I've taken a look at your sandbox article, and it looks like a great start. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I guess I'd just like to start with asking questions. Any suggestion on what articles I could look at to edit?Sonjaydewing (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any particular areas of interest? Or are you looking to do one kind of editing over another? For example, some people like to write new content, while others prefer to copyedit existing work. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do both. I've just written new content, so I'd like to switch to editing current content. I have a lot of interests, but I guess my top would be traveling- I travel a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaydewing (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, do you want to work on your new article with me, or would you rather wait for the review process and see how that goes? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind helping you out on a new article. I think that would be helpful. Sonjaydewing (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olu Oguibe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarefare - I am messaging in regards to your deletion of the NuHo Film Festival and the Ol' Dirty bastard reference. Not sure why these were deleted. Ol' Dirty was a prominent rapper with his own wikipage and the NuHo Online Film Festival is an emerging film festival which is releasing a biography on him and the new Wu-Tang album. All are worthy of mention in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.145.25 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it appears you're trying to wedge in information and links about your film festival into tangentially-related articles. Please read WP:SPAMMER before continuing to edit these pages. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to get adopted. I see you are a Computer Engineer I am from the much related Electronics Engg. field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catverine (talk • contribs) 17:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catverine! Do you have any specific goals for an adoption? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no specific goals.Catverine (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in a formal, lesson-based setup, or would you rather just go along editing and have me around for questions? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to go with the formal one. Catverine (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will set up an adoption page for you, and will post your first lesson shortly. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GorillaWarfare. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new here on Wikipedia, although not altogether new with writing. I live in Israel and have studied Jewish related topics (history, Talmud, Jewish laws and customs, etc.) for the past 30 years. While coming to Wikipedia, I got off to a bad start by trying to suggest modifications in an article entitled Gospel of Matthew. My comments were reverted. Of course, in this case, the editors were right, since I had failed to bring down reliable "Secondary Sources" in support of my comments. I have since tried to rectify my "lack of experience" by reading up on the rules outlined by Wikipedia to ensure that in the future such comments meet Wikipedia's standards.

Recently, I added a short "introduction" to the article entitled Seleucid era, bringing down certain Jewish sources as are known and accepted amongst our nation. Prior to doing this, I appealed to the writer(s) of the current article in the Talk page, Talk:Seleucid era, suggesting what I thought might be a worthy addition to that article. Again, my suggestions for improving the page were rejected. Later, I read the reason given for the revert, which (IMHO) seems to be a little contrived. Again, maybe I'm wrong. I do not rule out the possibility that I cannot see my own faults and shortcomings.

I seek your advice and help. What am I doing wrong? How can I improve my suggestions? With deepest respect, Davidbena (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that your additions are much more like an essay in tone, and contain synthesis of the sources you're using. That said, I'd recommend you discuss it with the user who reverted the edits—they can probably give you more feedback. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand your point, but what do I do when I wish to point out something that is agreed upon by all religious Jews (as, for example, the case surrounding the "Seleucid era" and its origins, or the case of the "Missing years (Hebrew calendar)" and why Jews have a different way of calibrating the years), and which things are largely unknown to those who are not Jewish? Moreover, the way in which Jews reached their consensus is really a conglomeration of many different things all pulled together into one? Are you saying that I should just quote the author who brings down the Jewish tradition, without explaining how that tradition is confirmed by other sources? It's complicated. Is there a middle ground that I can walk so that my comments will not seem like a "synthesis," and, yet, will explain what is behind the tradition? Please be patient with me.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look and see what is happening to me on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_sanctions_on_Davidbena. I'm confused by this attitude. Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this considered normal? [1] ?? Davidbena (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this at the ANI page. I'm very unfamiliar with religious topics, and am very busy in real life these days, to the point where I really can't answer your questions or advise you thoroughly. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please refer me to an administrator who can advise me? Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm new to vandalism reverting. I need a mentor who could adopt me and guide me through the process...

Regards, Faizking321 20:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizking321 (talk • contribs)

I have had a number of adoption requests, and since I usually try to keep to one adoptee at a time, I think I will decline. Good luck finding a mentor :) – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great, good, fine, magnificent work at Wiki. Really I've many things to learn from you. Take my salute. Pratyya (Hello!) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you blocked IP 86.46.143.77 for block evasion. Could you also block IP 86.42.9.131 for being a socket puppet of that IP you blocked? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Talking Union, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Talking Union" was originally written as new verses of Woody Guthrie's "Talking Dust Bowl Blues"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Talking Union. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gathered from some Huggle feedback discussion archives that you've managed to run Huggle3 beta natively under Mac OS X. Any chance you could point me to some instructions or outline the process for me? I'm quite comfortable with the Huggle 2 on Windows, but now I've transitioned to Mac OS X and I miss it. Thanks. Melmann^(talk) 17:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've ever run it natively on OS X—I either use a Windows virtual machine or using Wine on Linux ([[2]]). The Wine instructions should work for your Mac, though. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my apologies then. You're mentioned in Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback/Archive_17#Huggle_in_OSX so I figured you might be able to help me. I'll try Wine, but I'm not too hopeful. Thanks. Melmann^(talk) 03:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear!
Recently I apply for Campus Ambassador Program. Please suggest and discuss here on my proposal. For being support and promote wikipedia and wiki culture at my country and my university, you're comments will be helpful.
Thank You--Aashaa (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suppressing what I had requested. I realized after submitting the request, I should have included the edit that most likely spurned those action on my talk page. This one here. If that could be taken care of, that'd be great! Thank you once again for the timeliness. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All set. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April you deleted Collusion (software) under WP:CSD#A7. After seeing it mentioned on WT:CSD#Complaint I undeleted it and expanded it with multiple sources. I wanted to point out that a piece of software is not subject to A7 speedy deletion in the first place, and examples like this are the reason why -- it is too easy for subjects which are in fact notable to be deleted when a short stub is created. DES ^(talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so I did. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you deleted any other software products under A7, GorillaWarfare? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I recall. – GorillaWarfare (talk)

Would you help us check? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of a specific error I've made, please point it out so I can correct it. Given that I don't recall deleting any other software articles, I am not going to sift through over three years of deletions. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as you know, you have not deleted any articles related to software, under A7 ?

Please could you give us a list of the articles you have deleted under A7 in the last year? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can view my list of A7 deletions as easily as I. This is seeming less and less good-faith; if you know of a deletion I've made in error, please have out with it and end the inquisition. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Just Tidying Up. I'm commenting because, at some point in the past, you contributed to the Stalking Cat article or talk page. I recently performed a major rewrite of Stalking Cat, and I am interested to increase further expansion and improvement of the article, with other editors. If you are interested in this topic, please join us at Talk:Stalking_Cat#Major_rewrite. Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking for adoption and have just seen your post on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. I am not a native English speaker and a beginner in Wikipedia. I would be appreciated if you could provide some mentoring.--Sari9th (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sari9th. As it says on that page, I am not currently available to adopt you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. – GorillaWarfare (talk)

Hello GorillaWarfare,

I would just like to inform you that I have submitted my test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare/Adopt/JustBerry). I understand you may be very busy now, feel free to look at it when you get a chance. Thanks.

--JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently blocked User:Walnuts go kapow indefinitely as a vandalism only account, and they have submitted an unblock request. I had a quick look at some of their recent edits and I didn't spot any obvious vandalism. I wonder if you could have a second look, just in case there has been a mistake. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked and left an explanatory message on the user's talk page. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

articles for creation
Thank you for quality articles such as Epic Meal Time, for fighting vandalism and help with articles for creation, for thoughtful answers in your quest for responsibility, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 November 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the December blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would just like to inform you that I have submitted my test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catverine (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your election to ArbCom. It's kind of unusual for a candidate that I vote for to win. But you're an unusual candidate. Good luck!

Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations and good luck! I voted for you, too, and am happy to have done so. :) Best. Acalamari 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you :) – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your appointment. I have heard others say that they enjoyed the role and found it gratifying. I am grateful to have you in the position because I feel that you serve the interests of the community consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my congratulations, and best wishes. Matty.007 17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! I'm glad my vote helped put you there near the top. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats. I genuinely hope you've learned how to be fair and impartial after the drama at [3] [4], and that you'll do a good job. Orderinchaos 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done and best of luck with no grudges! Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page! The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Molly, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) And also Congratulations on your successful election to the Arbitration Committee! It's been a pleasure for me to support for a great candidate like you and I'm happy that you're there and know you'll do well. Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare. Excuse me for block-evading to ask, but I feel I've no other choice really. Would you consider overturning my permanent block for socking. I simply didn't do it. Your fellow arbitrator Timotheus Canens no-warn/no-discussion/no-diffs blocked me in May 2012. Well, it was prior to his being elected to Arbcom. There was simply never any truth to it. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy reasons. I was 100 percent honest about this from my first edit in this account[5]. My prior account had no blocks or sanctions or even warnings. Neither did this one until the first thing it got: a permanent block.

Timotheus, when he finally explained himself a year later, in order to argue against my unblocking, conflated "prior account" allowed under WP:CLEANSTART with "alternate account" forbidden under WP:SOCK. He pooh poohed the content work I had done even in the short time in the new account, such as creating Rain City Superhero Movement and labeled me a troublemaker based on a single aggravated criticism I made against an editor (Nomoskedasticity) who was calling for another editor (Youreallycan) to be banned at WP:AN/ANI. The background though was that Nomo. had tracked, taunted, and targeted Youreallycan for two years. It wasn't my fight, I had just read Youreallycan plaintively beseech Nomo. "just please leave me alone"[6][7], and then the next day or whatever it was I spot Nomo. once more going at Youreallycan arguing to ban him. I slipped on civility, but I viewed myself as confronting one person bullying another. None of any of that makes me a sock, and Timotheus knows it.

I didn't handle my appeals well at first, I really didn't understand the administrative world, nor who where these WP:AN/ANI personalities that descended en masse on my talkpage to harangue and accuse me. Some of them hatched theories that my prior account is some notorious sanctioned or banned editor. There's neither evidence nor truth to any of that. Anyhow, I don't want to write a novel here at your talkpage. I will answer any questions that you have and cease block-evading if you unlock merely my talkpage to me. I should point out that while Arbcom, WP:AN/ANI, and Jimbo have *declined to unblock* me, I am only actually *blocked* by a single administrator, and thus eligible to be unblocked upon research and discussion by any other administrator per WP:UNBLOCK. The reason I feel I've no choice but to block evade to seek appeal is that the only other thing I could do is email WP:BASC. Timotheus sits there and refuses to recuse, plus they reject statistically 92% of appeals, plus when I previously tried I was rejected without any explanation. So I feel that that avenue is just a sham. There is also WP:UTRS, but I've privacy concerns about that manner of computer fingerprinting, as well it's a technical avenue of appeal, but my block is not based on technical evidence of socking, it's based on wordplay and definition-twisting about what is a "sock." Thank you for reading Gorilla. Colton Cosmic. PS: My comment here will probably be lightning-reverted by one administrative participant or other, I've got quite the pack of them pursuing me courtesy WP:AN/ANI. I may seek to restore, unless it's you reverting it, I feel editors should be allowed to police their own talkpages absent obvious vandalism, and that others should keep their fingers off.

Colton, you don't need to go around harassing new arbs, when you have very clearly been blocked by a consensus at ANI, which requires ANI to review, but since you've exhausted your options onwiki, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is your only option. At this point UTRS has already heard you out (if i'm not mistaken multiple times) and declined to unblock you. You know your options, take them or leave them.

@GorillaWarfare: If you wish you can read into this, but I see it as an inherit waste of time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)))[reply]

Hi, DQ. The block I placed on this IP was the only action I plan to take. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DQ, from "harrassment" in the beginning to UTRS at the end, plus everything in between, everything you said is wrong, and spoken like someone who cares nothing that he knows nothing. Gorilla, well with that kind of no-thought/no-explanation block, you'll fit in well at Arbcom. Colton Cosmic.

GorillaWarfare, I surely need some help here, please!

There are apparently two issues in my article: 1. Too few independent sources After the article draft was first turned down on December 5 I have looked at a large number of articles on music schools, most of them in the US. Most of these articles contain no or almost no sources whatsoever. This is a typical or perhaps above average example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Nova_School_of_the_Arts Just so that I don't misunderstand anything, I presume that all articles on music schools are subjected to the same reviewing standards, no? What is it then that the article on the Ars Nova School of the Arts has managed to convey in the way of independent, reliable, published sources that the Adolf Fredrik's music school hasn't?

2. Lacking the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article Well, I will work through the article. That said, is it possible that I bounce it off you informally once or twice, so that I don't need to wait three more weeks betwwen feedbacks. Andersneld (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many of our articles on this subject are lacking; I would not use just any music article as an example, as many are not up to standard. Perhaps you could use a good article on the subject, such as Chetham's School of Music.

I can't promise an immediate response to your requests for feedback so, although you're welcome to ask me, I'd recommend that you also resubmit it in case someone can get to it before I can. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again GorillaWarfare, I have now rewritten a lot and added more independent sources.

I need specific advice on the second paragraph that quotes from independent sources regarding the school. I included this paragraph because the first editor to turn down the article commented that "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". Is this where you think the article does not have a tone that is formal enough, or are you talking about other instances? Should I remove the second paragraph or keep it?

This thing about notablity is a bit confusing, really. I understand that articles re US High Schools will automatically be included, but other schools only after due consideration ... Andersneld (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an account on the ACC account creation interface. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's a little too late for that but I'd like to restore my page "Vanilla Beans (japanese band)". I did not know you could do drafts before publishing an article. It also might be me who created the article on the French Wikipedia I also have more sources at my disposal to make the article more eligible Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your answer. Améthy$te (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:Améthy$te/Vanilla Beans (Japanese band). You can work on it at that location, and then it can be moved to the articlespace when it's ready. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Améthy$te (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are a sysop right? i was wondering if you could use your admin privs to look at an article that was deleted a month ago. this is the deleted article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Fro-losophy if you could make a copy in my IP Address's userspace, that would be appreciated. if this is against wikipedia's many policies in some way or another please disregard this message. thanks and have a great day!--2605:A000:110A:C05E:7195:CBE2:C96B:29B8 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Userpage of IP is not allowed, so you may have to create account to receive copy of mail or get text in userspace. --Revi_talk 08:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hym411, okay made one. I usually edit by IP, so it's a throwaway, althoug I've marked my old one which I forgot the pw to with the retired template.--TypicalUsername2014 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page and moved it to Draft:My Fro-losophy, where you can edit it as a logged-in editor or as an IP. Please bear in mind our sockpuppetry policy, which is very specific about the use of multiple accounts. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. i have a dynamic ipv6 address which seems to change every other day or so, so if you see diff IP's editing the draft over the next few days, please keep that in mind. thanks again.--2605:A000:110A:C05E:A18C:5488:4F13:CCC5 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can work with GregJackP on his unblock request, I tracked the incident and was lurking. Marcus British was unbelievably rude. See Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1. GregJackP might need a trout slap for getting involved with a troll, but I have not seen such a vitriolic GA review in my time on - wiki. This is, in my view, not a case of "you both misbehaved on the playground so I'm giving you both detention." Marcus was seriously WP:BAIT-ing the poor article author and making mountains out of molehills. the reviewer who said taht one party was too fussy and the other too generous pretty much nailed it. The article needed work, but it didn't need the hatchet job that Marcus did . Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the 1 week block. I have read Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/GA1, as well as the various relevant talkpage comments. I see and that GregJackP has expressed a desire to have nothing to do with MarcusBritish at all. Given that blocks are generally supposed to be preventative, what is this supposed to prevent? MarcusBritish has been indefinitely blocked, and GregJackP is willing to leave the guy's talkpage alone, so I don't see the point of the block and I am inclined to lift it. If you have further information as to why this would be a bad decision, please let me know; otherwise, I will unblock GregJackP later today. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quadell. I have responded via email. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, Old AfC drafts are eligible under G13 when they are 6 months without a edit, not 6 months from draft creation. i.e. A AfC submission that gets worked on every 5 months never becomes eligible for G13 as opposed to a AfC submission that was created 6 months ago. Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I misspoke. I've fixed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Red Dirt Rising (2011 Film), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed a strange group of accounts. Perhaps bot-created? Could be more than the 3 below, but CU could find that better than me. Here's the ones I have so far:

• Balis2012Group 4 (talk | contribs) (Created on 23 January 2014 at 13:59)
• Balis2012group3 (talk | contribs) (Created on 23 January 2014 at 07:48)
• BALIS2 GROUP2 (talk | contribs) (Created on 23 January 2014 at 11:13)

Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little unclear as to why you're asking me this. The usernames are concerning because of WP:ISU, but the edits aren't in themselves terribly concerning. Also, I'm probably not the best person for this job, being a new CU :P GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New checkusers are the best. They get the most leeway when it comes to mistakes. Anyways, I was going back to Commons when I posted this, so I should've looked a bit more closely. Looks like a class of some kind from somewhere in Africa considering the list of names on the pages. Next time I'll bring you something more interesting. INeverCry 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing whatever the issue was on my talk page, but Im curious as to what required three days of posts to be redacted. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were edits there that met the oversight criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, thanks I believe I see the issue. I think there is still an issue there. The diff is redacted by the text of a post from 20/1 by the same editor might need your intervention. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gorilla Warfare,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [8], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Why can I not put my contact information on my About Me page? Could you please renew all of my contact information if possible? At LEAST the Wikia contact information must stay.

And if not, then can I put all the information back when I am 18 years old? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Nmandowa's talk page.

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC). 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.

-TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GorillaWarfare,

Thank you for getting back to me. Also, thank you for giving me an explanation as to why the resource I added was removed. I just felt that people coming to Wikipedia’s Vital Records page may also be looking for help on where to get them, which is why I added VitalChek to the external links section. They provide government issued vital records, which I have used in the past, and thought that others may find the resource useful. I think it would be an appropriate resource to include, since it would be helpful to many visitors, at least in my opinion. I am looking forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.139.103 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link anything that meets the guidelines at WP:EL. From what I can tell, that does, but the description you added was a bit spammy in tone. "X is your official resource" sounds straight out of an infomercial. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and now that I read it, I agree with you, that was not my intention. I posted it again, hopefully this time it comes out better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.139.103 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [9]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

How does one report a user for personal attacks, bad faith, and generally being a jerk? Just who is in charge around here, anyway? RMc (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can do so on Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. If you're discussing Smuckola, I would not recommend doing so. Neither of you handled the situation particularly well, but the issue is resolved, so let's move on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparent anti-female bigotry. Thank you. Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bad move on my part, yeah. But I did put that "so to speak" there for a reason. I was trying to make a general point about third-party ANI threads with relation to civility/NPA, not specifically about bigotry (or even really about this particular case, though obviously I saw it as an example); the "white-knight" was meant in a more general sense of "trying to jump in and come to the rescue of some poor editor", not the gender-specific meaning, if that makes any sense. The point being that, since everyone has different standards of what is uncivil and what isn't and/or since everyone has different tolerances for things like ANI, trying to jump in and decide things for the victim by starting an ANI thread is not always a good answer, since for various reasons they might not want such a thread to be started. But it was poor word choice on my part; it was the only phrase close to what I wanted to say that occurred to me, and given the context, "so to speak" wasn't strong enough to make it clear what I meant. So yeah, against all odds, I actually didn't mean it with any gender-related connotations. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you here because it is an interesting question, isn't it? I think you've had long enough to think up an answer. Giano (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare(user). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general note, K et al., there seem to be other impersonation accounts following this pattern; I've blocked one for Acroterion, too. So be on the lookout. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, my pleasure to help :-) ... Anyway, my doubt that GorillaWarfare(user) could be you was only "formal", just the time to wait the obvious response: malicious account impersonating a WP admin. And... the nick was quite identical (so as to make superfluous) with that "(user)", the edits were a copy of your UP and, rotfl, talk page, you were away on IRC, the account was not identified by you and was not marked as patrolled. Lol, not so sly as vandal :-D . Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work. Pine✉ 19:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia into darkness. Regarding the XX thing:

• Although you didn't campaign on it per se, some of the AC2013 voter guides explicitly mentioned your gender, so complaining about the negative effects [10] is a wit bit lame.
• Given the multiple meanings of White knight as indicated by the fact that it's a disambig page, including some, e.g. White knight (business), with no sexual / romantic content, it was a lack of good faith to call out Writ Keeper for using the term without first inquiring what their intent in using the term.
• The most important thing to understand is that you were not attacked for your actions in the KG case because you are a woman, you were attacked because you got in the way of someone's political theater, and the gender thing was an excuse. Last I looked I have 1 K WQA and about 2 K ANI edits, so I've lots of experience in wiki pissing contests; folks in wikibattle will find and use any excuse for an ad hominem attack on those they disagree with, ranging from gender to race to country of origin to wiki project to whatever. For good or bad, you've chosen to edit fairly publicly so you're likely to get all sorts of nonsense. (Personally, if I was going ad hominem you I'd use the Python thing; everyone knows real programmers use C^[1]) NE Ent 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's "a bit lame" for me to mention that someone is being sexist because some voter guides mentioned I was female? What? I don't see why people knowing that I am female should stop me from acknowledging when people are using that fact to insult me. I'm also a bit offended at the implication that I somehow was elected to ArbCom due to my gender, regardless of whether or not you think I campaigned on it.

Perhaps you are right about Writ Keeper's use of the term "white knighting," although I don't think it was too bad-faith of me to assume he was using the gender-related term in a conversation relating to sexism. Either way, he already explained his use of the term here, so I think we're on the same page.

I was not under the impression that I was being attacked because of my gender; I'm fully aware that it was the block and events surrounding it that led to the dispute. My comments pertaining to my gender were simply me expressing my distaste at it being used as a basis for attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• *headscratches*. So, GorillaWarfare is not allowed to have or voice opinions about anything where...someone else has already had an opinion? Does this apply universally? Because I have some strong opinions about C++. Mostly they're good, but still. Arguing over whether it was sexist or not sexist is perfectly viable, but arguing that GW is unable to mention or discuss the negative effects of gender transparency on the internet because other people have, outside of her control, mentioned it, is simply trite.
• Also, Python is a terrible, terrible language. Give me strict typing or give me death. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course she's allowed to have opinions, and of course she's "allowed" to voice them. Surely I'm allowed to voice my opinion (once, in a respectful non-disruptive way)? Not all that is permitted is wise, however, and I've seen multiple editors become trollbait because they've tipped that a particular type of comment gets under their skin. NE Ent 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do appreciate your advice. Regardless, I'd rather become trollbait than ignore sexist remarks. I'd like to think our community won't allow any future bigoted comments that my reaction provokes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki as it should be: Simple civility principle
• Wiki as I'd hoped / urged : Notes on civility
• Wiki as it unfortunately seems to be: the real problem is English Wikipedia does not have a functional civility policy; as evidenced by the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 02:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the 13 active members of the Arbitration Committee, selected randomly, I ask GorillaWarfare for assistance. I would like to make an arbitration case request, since I have exhausted the last available avenue.

I would love to believe that I have been given a fresh start, as a volunteer advised, and that I can bold edit normally, like any other user. But I know the facts and what the opposing users actually stated. Thus, I must try arbitration before performing my last leap of faith.

The arbitration requests page is protected. Being an IP user, this venue is denied to me. Therefore, I request to celebrate the arbitration case in a page I have permission to write, such as the talk page for my IP. Please indicate whether this is acceptable and I will proceed to make the case request. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an arbitration case is actually what you want here. The issue seems to be primarily a content dispute, which is not under the Arbitration Committee's remit. I think Guy Macon's suggestion that you try an RFC might be a wise next step. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure an arbitration case is actually what applies and what I want here. I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Wikipedia will never accept this content. Wikipedia will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic. This is why there has never been discussion. Guy Macon did not discuss either (I know it is a volunteer job).

I am not asking for the material to be accepted. I am asking for discussion. Quoting RfC, "Before using the RfC process [...], it always helps to first discuss the matter". Quoting the Dispute resolution noticeboard FAQ, "Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue". I am the one who discusses but also the one who gets blocked for an edit war excuse, is that a content issue?

Perhaps I will file all those requests for comments. Why does not the Arbitration Committee help, reject my arbitration case request and state that this is really a content issue? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:DRN deals with content disputes and not user conduct, it is not my place to comment on user conduct issues. Because arbcom deals primarily with user conduct issues and does not rule on content disputes, I want 84.127.80.114 to understand that a new DRN case can be filed if an arbcom member feels that going back and dealing with content issues would be beneficial. If that happens, I plan on recusing myself and letting another dispute resolution volunteer handle the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Guy Macon continue with this confusion? I have not asked Guy Macon to talk about user conduct. Guy Macon did not discuss the article content [11].

GorillaWarfare's talk page is not the place to talk about what happened in the DRN case. Unless GorillaWarfare asks, we should move the subject to another place. I am in this page because of an arbitration case request. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I want what I should have gotten from day 0: a formal answer that Wikipedia will never accept this content." You state right here that you want a statement on content. I don't see why you need the Committee to formally reject the case when you're already saying it's a content issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And right after, "Wikipedia will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic." It is a topic issue, a refusal to discuss the content for reasons not based on policy. The Arbitration Committee deals with topics: Abortion, Afghanistan, Arab-Israeli conflict...

Why does not GorillaWarfare simply oppose to my arbitration case request? How about "do the bold edit, try that fresh start, it will not mean a block"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is Wikipedia isn't fair and its not meant to be. If the project were fair, then editors would have just as much ability to edit as admins do and that would cause the whole system, according to some, to collapse. Control of the system is in the hands of the admins so as long as you are just an editor, you are powerless to do anything about it. All you can do is stop editing. If enough people stop editing, then eventually they will be forced to either change the way the system works, or end Wikipedia. 172.56.3.179 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the cases? The findings were all to do with the editors involved; the Committee did not decide what content should be added to the article.

Quite frankly, the content that you are attempting to add to the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You have been told this many times, but appear to prefer claiming that consensus-building has failed when it has not gone your way. An arbitration case will not change this, and even if your position was correct, we would not have the authority to say so. This would just waste the time of more editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quod erat demonstrandum, again. GorillaWarfare did not answer my questions. I am not asking the Committee to decide what content should be added to the article. It is true that I have been told many times that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, although without explanation. I would love to discuss the material with GorillaWarfare, the discussion is still in the talk page. Will GorillaWarfare accept my invitation? I do not think so but I may be wrong.

I would like to request an arbitration case. Does GorillaWarfare oppose to this request? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if you create an arbitration case, someone could port it over to the requests page, but GW is right -- your case is dead on arrival, and requesting one is going to waste people's time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of his questions were answered and he got good advice from me when he brought this to WP:DRN. The problem is that he is not willing to accept the answers or follow the advice.

I will repeat that advice here, because it is still good:

"As for the content dispute itself, normally at this time I try to get everyone to compromise and find a version that everyone can live with, but in this case it is quite clear that 84.127.80.114's preferred version simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability or neutrality. Rather than taking my word for it, 84.127.80.114 could post an RfC, but the result will be the same. 84.127.80.114. the consensus is clearly against you, and that clearly is not going to change. There comes a time when one must realize that a particular battle is lost. We even have a page explaining this: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass."[12]

"The rest of the material about Debian internal politics has a snowball's chance of making it into the article. Even the claim we are discussing has a relevance problem; who outside of the Debian community cares about exactly how developers are kicked out? I just checked Slackware, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and BSD. None of them gets into such detail about internal politics."[13]

"Now you could post an RfC and get more editors to weigh in on this. We wouldn't want a handful of editors to dominate a page and so the editor with a minority view can, if he has good arguments, persuade a large group of editors to overrule the local consensus. You could do that but it is extremely doubtful in this case that the larger group of editors will agree with you.

"You could go the rounds of various noticeboards and other dispute resolution venues, but again the odds that this will end up with you getting your way are vanishingly small. As I see it, you have two options. Either persuade other editors, or drop the stick There are currently 4,466,538 articles where you aren't so involved that you can work on."[14]

"Make a persuasive argument and get some editors to agree with you, and if you reach the point where there is a clear consensus for the changes you wish to make except for one holdout, and I will tell that fellow that he isn't going to get what he wants."[15]

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "not on GorillaWarfare's talk page" is not understood? Here it is my answer. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed is correct that you could create an arbitration case elsewhere and someone could move it for you. Regarding "Does GorillaWarfare oppose to this request?", yes. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do not think you should try to bring this to ArbCom. Please pursue the RfC route instead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank GorillaWarfare for answering. I see that I can edit an open case. I will prepare the request in due time. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using socks, said in an edit summary that a user was sexually abused by their father also removing his block notice by Arb Com via anon IPs, and making racist remarks: [[16]] [[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.12.223 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already blocked these two, nothing to see here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

TheGGoose (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	i want real life barnstar because i want to show people what is going on in life how life is going on Suzana2002 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So yeah this is me. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Émile Durkheim page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:FeelYouUp is derp on WP. Danger^Mouse (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Hey GW - as a heads up, I uploaded a copy of your reftools tutorial to the internet archive here, just because Mediawiki supports so few file formats (most of the people I've needed to show the video to couldn't play a .ogv.) Once the IA finishes transcoding the video, it should be available (and playable) to just about anyone who would like to view it. I'm going to go ahead and throw a link to the IA version in to the commons description. Hopefully there will be some more large scale IA/WMF collaboration in the near future on video, but for now, even this one is super convenient :) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

did the GOCE forget to copyedit their templated message, or did I accidentally muck something up to get included in the coloring? starting another section to test it out.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the former. Thanks for the heads up! Glad you've found it useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Hello GW, sorry to trouble you, but Kiko4564 (a user you have previously blocked, changed the block settings for, or unblocked) has requested to be unblocked. There is a discussion at ANI which so far has attracted no interest, if you wish to leave a comment, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564. Nick (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Belated thank you for the work that you did on the Terry Fulmer article. I appreciate the way that you worked with the newbie contributors to help them keep the article on site, and also took it to DYK. The number of articles in [[Category:Nursing school deans]] under represents the field and it would have been a shame to lose this one because of misunderstandings about coi and copyright. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. That said, I'm a bit confused about the last bit—I don't see any templates on the article or any discussion on the talk page. Is there some concern that's been raised about this article somewhere? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just concerns raised at DYK, but you preempted it by working with the editors instead of just revering them. Looks like several of the editors had coi but you didn't take an aggressive stance like some other people do, and too often ends poorly!! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[18] add diff that show edit where you are working with Terry Fulmer. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand. Well thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foxy Shazam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone! Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here. Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. There do seem to be a whole huge slew of edits they performed, including disruptive moves. Are you able to handle that? I believe admins have bulk reversion tools to help, whereas I, non admin, would find it quite a slog.

Looking at their contributions record they wil require watching on return. There may be a need to reblock and fast. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look through soon and see if I can straighten some of it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm guessing you've already received it, but I will still post a notification here just in case. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Enso Group logo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I should let you know that your name came up on my talk page. Also, Ms. Big Shot, what an amazingly boring talk page you have! I think you should invite Hafspajen to liven the place up with some dogs and art work. Surriously. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A van Gogh maybe, to start with, Drmies? Hafspajen (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you Drmies :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.