User talk:GorillaWarfare

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

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

amazing picture. 👌 I love YOU. 🧡 Do You?

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hey

You just thanked me for my edit on Enrique Tarrio's page. Your home page says you edit on a variety of topics. Would you like to work on an article for a classic song I've been meaning to finish?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: What's the article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "Return to Sender"MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Cool, I'll check it out! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the big problems with the article are the charts sections and the opening. Also, the composition and reception sections could be expanded if possible.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Also, I have no clue how to add a sample of the song to the article. Do you?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I've never done it before, but I bet it's pretty easy to figure out by looking at other articles. I pulled up Wikipedia:Featured articles#Songs and looked at "Today" (great song, by the way), which has a clip. You'll need to pick a short section of the song, since we can only use a portion of the song that is "short in relation to the duration of the recorded track". Normally people pick a portion of the song that is particularly illustrative of something mentioned in the article; maybe "its up-tempo, 'gently rock[ing]' beat"? If you have a high quality version of the recording, you'll also want to reduce the quality to meet the "of inferior quality to the original recording" stipulation. Once that's all ready, you can upload it and use the {{Non-free audio sample}} template, and add a fair use rationale like the one at File:Today (Smashing Pumpkins song - sample).ogg. If you have any trouble with the technical side of this, let me know the timestamps of the portion of the song you want to use and I can try to clip it for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A low-quality snippet of the track can be found in this [trailer]. I'd use 0:41 to 0:53 before the horn noise that's not part of the song. Thanks!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Magicatthemovies.

Citation Question

Hey, I wanted to point out a citation that is being used on alt-tech, but I do not think it fits WP:RS https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-mainstream-social-media-data-collection-compares-with-alt-tech-rivals This specific article is a rewrite of a news blog, which is not regarded as a RS, and I don't believe it meets Wiki's high standards for citation since its Tertiary and not an independently written article, its a copy. However, I do not have the experience you do on Wiki and I might be missing something, so I do not want to make a change unless you agree. It's not a major change to the page at all, it would only remove Triller from Alt-Tech. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Canadianr0ckstar2000: Can you explain what you mean when you say it's a rewrite of a news blog? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The PCMAG article copies images and summarized another website article called Cybernews. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant they were actually reprinting another site's reporting. That's an interesting question: whether we should consider this PC Mag's reliability or Cybernews'. My inclination is the former, as I would think their editorial oversight would extend to verifying the claims they were reporting upon. As for Cybernews, I'm not seeing any discussion of it at RSN, but it appears to have editorial oversight: [1], so I'm not convinced it is unreliable itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: When reviewing Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources, it seems to me it should be a secondary source as a citation. In this case, PCMag is not secondary source. I'm thinking it should be replaced with Cybernews, but Cybernews needs to be an RS. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would consider that PC Mag source a secondary source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to bring it to your attention. I will defer to your understanding here as you have more experience. Thanks. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear GorillaWarfare, I just came across your page yesterday, I work mostly on the German Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for your refreshing example of excellence. Really inspiring. Best wishes, --Nanorsuaq (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi there seeking your advice, I noticed you changed the protection level on List of coups and coup attempts due to edit warring, and I think it's happening again. There was constructive conversation and evidence that led to the removal of an entry related to the "storming of the capitol" from this page, you can see it in the talk page. However there has been multiple restorations of this entry without valid source or reference, engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the restorations come from different anonymous IP addresses. It looks shady. I feel that it is important to not mislabel these events, so have been reverting these entries I believe in good faith, but I also do not want to engage in edit warring myself... can you advise how to move forward in dealing with this situation? Thanks in advance!!

BluePillx (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I recommend a longer protection (2 weeks full protection perhaps, or at least ECP). Nobody has done a decent analysis of the weight of terms used by reliable sources. And those who advocate including it aren't inclined to meet the WP:BURDEN of supporting it as long as it's in there. I've kinda bowed out. The page was semi-protected and I answered a couple of edit requests, the first to decline removing the entry, and for the second request I changed my mind and removed the entry after some thought and looking at sources myself, particularly following the related discussion at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Indef semi is appropriate as a standard protection level for that page, with full or ECP reserved for content disputes such as this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@BluePillx: That's disappointing to see that people are warring over it without much attempt to discuss. I've fully protected the page again, this time for one week. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Love of My Life page

I don't understand why adding CITED information that proves the statement added to the article is considered ”vandalism”.

The vandalism was in the removing of the valid Information.

Also, wasn't I supposed to get multiple warnings before my right to edit was removed?

Can you please tell me what is not correct in this? :

The Breakup song was written by Freddie Mercury. Mercury never publicly disclosed the song's muse. He stated in an interview: "There isn’t really any connection between the music and my life. 'Love of My Life,' for instance, I simply made up.” However, Freddie wrote the break-up song while in the midst of he and Mary Austin's relationship changing and in the beginnings of their break up.  

But, Mercury often claimed he was against stating and didn't like reporters asking about, the meanings of his songs. So he would flippantly dismiss the question by saying they weren‘t about anything. " You should never ask me about my lyrics. People ask, "Why did you write such and such a lyric and what does it mean? I don’t like to explain what I was thinking when I wrote a song. I think that’s awful. That’s not what it’s all about. I don’t like to analyse it. I prefer people to put their own interpretation upon it — to read into it whatever they like.”

Freddie has stated many times that his love songs were based off of his love life. He stated in interviews:. "I feel I’ve gone through all those things myself too, so basically I’m encompassing and actually gathering that research and putting them into songs. I like writing romantic songs about love because there’s much to do with me. I have always written those. I mean, since the early days... There are many things that influence you to make music, almost all that surrounds you.”

John Reid said the song had been written about Mercury’s boyfriend at the time, David Minns: "Freddie actually wrote 'Love of My Life,' for David Minns. Freddie told me that. 'Love of My Life,' was for Minns."

However, ”Love of My Life" had already been written before Freddie and Minns first met. It could not have been inspired by David Minns. The timeline precludes David Minns as the inspiration for "Love of My Life'.’ David Minns, in his book, twice says when he met Freddie, Freddie complained about how long the recording of "A Night At the Opera" (ANATO) was taking. “Oh, i’m just a bit pissed off with the way things are going with the new album, it’s taking forever.” and "l remember him telling me before we said goodbye that night that he often despaired of ever seeing it finished as the recordings had been going on for so long, " BomiRustomji (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@BomiRustomji: Nowhere did I describe your edits as vandalism. If you look at my edit summary you will see: Protected "Love of My Life (Queen song)": Edit warring / content dispute -- discuss your suggested changes on the talk page; do not continuously war over them. I am sure you know much more about Queen and his work than I do; I have no idea whether what you are adding is correct or not. However I do see that the topic of who inspired the song has been disputed at length on the talk page, and I saw the ongoing edit war between you and what I later determined to be a handful of sockpuppets. Regardless of who is right, it is not okay to war over the content of the page; please establish consensus for your suggested version on the talk page and then it can be introduced to the article itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@gorillawarfare I’m trying to discover how this works. So I apologize if I'm going about this in the wrong way.

What I don't understand is that if you determined that sock puppets were removing the information, why would you assist them in their endeavor?

If they’re sock puppets, they’re not arguing in good faith, correct?

However I provided sources.

All I know is the page is now left with incomplete false information. For instance I provided proof the song was written before David Minns ever met Freddie. ... From Minns himself.

Yet a claim that it was about him was left there. The timeline of when the song was written definitively disproves the claim.

I don't understand why the content I added was removed. A moderator had already RESTORED it because the page was being vandalized because of the removal, and then you helped the vandals get what they wanted.

Couldnt the info had been left as as is? So it could be discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@BomiRustomji: It is pretty standard to restore pages to the pre-edit war revision while discussion occurs. All revisions to a page are saved in the page history, so if you wish to show your suggested changes you can just link to that. Although this recent dispute involved you and a handful of sockpuppets, the issue appears to go all the way back to 2018, and it doesn't appear any consensus was reached as the discussions died off. I would recommend starting a new discussion on that talk page, laying out your sourcing, and making the arguments you are making here. It is not me you need to convince; it is other editors of that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did lay out the sourcing. The arguments are being ignored because the vandals have been given gatekeeping power.

A reason I'm discussing it with you is because I think you made an error in including my original edit as the beginning of the war. Those sock puppets deleted the info without any attempt to discuss it. They vandalized what was added.

I understand now that I misunderstood the process. When I changed things back, I gave the reasons why when I did it and I thought that WAS part of the ”talk” page. But there was no attempt to discuss the content, it was just summarily deleted.

No one challenged the sources I used, they just vandalized by deleting. And then you came in and did what the vandals wanted.

In any case. I'm not sure how I'm to discuss this with sock puppets. It seems to me sock puppets have been given the power of all gatekeeping.

If there’s no one arguing in good faith, and just summarily deleting, ignoring any sourcing... there’s no one to discuss it wuth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BomiRustomji (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the discussions on the talk page — this subject has been discussed since as far back as 2018, far before these sockpuppets existed. I would recommend pinging some of the people involved in those discussions. You do not have to discuss this with the sockpuppets, who will not be able to contribute to the discussion as they have been blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I have just done that for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that advice. I appreciate it. Two more questions:

What if those that are pinged never respond? (Maybe they no longer participate here on Wiki) How is consensus formally reached?

I wish this process was more user friendly.. BomiRustomji (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I happen to know that GB fan is a highly active editor, so they at least will see the ping if not reply to it. SummerPhD was too, though it looks like they haven't edited so recently. Emotioness Expression last edited about a week ago. Regardless, if editors don't engage there are other venues to get outside input. WP:CONSENSUS gives more info on how consensus is determined. I suspect this issue won't need a formal discussion (like WP:RfC), but if necessary that could happen too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've come across this dispute as an uninvolved editor, and I can tell you that the page is locked with a false quote in it. The statement that John Reid said the song was written "for his only love Mary" is cited to a book, Somebody to Love: The Life, Death and Legacy of Freddie Mercury p. 115. That page of that book is available to read online at "for+minns"+john+reid+love+of+my+life&pg=PT61&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books, and quite clearly says:

Written originally on the piano but adapted for guitar by Brian May, it has often been considered a love song for Mary Austin but, during the writing of this book, Queen's manager of the time, John Reid, revealed who the song was really about: 'Freddie actually wrote "Love Of My Life" for David Minns. Freddie told me that. "Love Of My Life" was for Minns.'

Now, you may or may not agree that this is true, and you may or may not think it belongs in the lede. But you can't falsify a quote from a published source. This should be fixed immediately. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: I stepped in as an admin to end the edit warring on the page, not to enforce a "correct" version of the page. As I said to Bomi above, I have little familiarity with this subject area, and am certainly not going to mix my uninvolved admin actions with becoming involved in a content dispute about which I know very little. Please raise your concern at the article talk page for discussion among people who can actually provide an informed opinion on the content issue. If an edit needs to be made urgently, you can use the edit request process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting involved in Wikipedia's byzantine dispute resolution process again. You have made an error, no doubt in good faith, but an error nonetheless, and I have brought it to your attention. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Nicknack009: Engaging in discussion on a talk page isn't "byzantine". If you want to make a non-controversial edit (such as correcting an obvious error) in an article you can't edit, then make an edit request. Also, see m:The Wrong Version; an admin's job, when acting in an admin capacity rather than as an editor, is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project, and has tools available (like article protection and account blocking) to accomplish that. An admin shouldn't mix administrative acts with editorial decisions about which version is "correct" other than possibly reverting back to before the edit-war started. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist:, if you're not going to do anything helpful, then mind your own business. This page is unnecessarily byzantine.

@GorillaWarfare:, WP:RS/QUOTE says "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." This quote that you have locked into the page misrepresents a living person. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist is correct, and please do not be so rude to them. Starting a talk page section and putting what you've said here into it is no more complicated than the edits you've made to my talk page. Thank you for doing so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: Yeah, I guess Wikipedia:Edit requests is kind of daunting at first look. Basically, all you need to do is start a new section on the talk page, put the tag {{edit fully-protected}} at the top of the section, and put your proposed change under the tag. The tag causes your request to be listed on a category page, and any administrator reviewing that page can come along and assess the request during the protection period. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: See Talk:Love_of_My_Life_(Queen_song)#False_quote_in_lede GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Eh. You're right. I just responded to a ping notification without first checking the article talk page. Nevermind, looks like all is well now. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bezos stepping down as Amazon CEO

I read the NYT announcement on his intent to step down this summer and added it to the lede. After doing so, I saw that it had been added in the body a few minutes earlier, and you had sorted it out a bit after a few editors got it wrong. Feel free to edit the lede any way you see fit. Thanks. Activist (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine how it is now; I just happened to notice that someone had updated the article to suggest that he had already stepped down, which is what I wanted to fix. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I could see that you were assuring that the article remained factual. I also wanted to see if my edit was okay, so thanks for checking. Activist (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quazal.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Quazal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

		The Signpost Barnstar
		. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]]) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with it! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your contributions to Gab, Parler and Epik. Keep at it! X-Editor (talk) 6 February 2021, 00:16 (UTC)

Thank you for yours! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem! X-Editor (talk) 6 February 2021, 02:00 (UTC)

RfPP on Sleepless

Hey, wanted to thank you for the protect on Sleepless - just had a question, is Protect under BLP correct for this type of article? I never know which to request for, and knowing for the future helps me sort out what I'm doing. Nerdwiththehat^Talk 20:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nerdwiththehat: Whoops, no it isn't. Meant to select the "disruptive editing" preset! Thanks for catching that, I've adjusted the protection to the appropriate one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the update! Nerdwiththehat^Talk 20:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement log

Hi, could you please add your recent protections re: Poland to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I already did: [2] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Why did Vrba–Wetzler report need to be protected? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The topic area is "the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland", and it seemed to me all four articles for which protection was requested pretty clearly fit under that topic area. I imagine the requester noticed disruption at one of the articles and decided to request protection of a few that might be targeted similarly, which is reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's peculiar. Please say who the requester was. The only thing that is happening is that Buidhe is trying to add a scholarly source to Witold Pilecki, which gives a more three-dimensional view of him (he is a Polish national hero). Polish editors have been reverting her. [3]

Auschwitz Protocols and Vrba–Wetzler report have nothing to do with Pilecki. There is nothing in them that anyone would find controversial. It's really strange to draw them into this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There were four requests at RfPP (permalink in case they're archived). I have no idea what the history is with Buidhe that you're mentioning, but the fact remains that non-extended confirmed editors are not permitted to edit articles about antisemitism or the Holocaust in Poland. This protection won't prevent Buidhe from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Maybe the IP was having some fun. This illustrates how problematic the decision was to place these all under 30/500. Buidhe is struggling to add an academic source. Polish editors have lined up against her. Bob not snob arrives to help her. Therefore, one of the Polish editors requests 30/500 protection to keep him out.

These articles can't be fixed unless the community supports the efforts (editors, admins, Arbs), but at every turn the opposite happens, which is why several of us have withdrawn from editing them. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jason Figgis

I have been updating the entry for Jason Figgis, film director. I now see that all the new additions have been removed and it has reverted to the previous version. A message was left saying the following: Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. An edit you recently made to Jason Figgis seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This was not done as a test. I am a film producer who works with Mr Figgis. These changes were made to bring his entry up to date. I would appreciate it if these additions were put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits were entirely unsourced. All edits to Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. Please also note our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Jason Figgis entry. I am not being paid to update it. I am updating it because it is several years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I see. "Who works with Mr. Figgis" made me think you were employed by him. Regardless, without adequate sourcing your changes can't be restored. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You asked if I am being paid to edit the entry. I have confirmed I am not. Please define your definition of 'adequate sourcing'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand, I was explaining why I thought that. Regarding sourcing, any statements about Figgis need to be supported by reliable sources. You can read the reliable sources policy, or WP:EYNTK is a much shorter primer for people just getting started editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of adding links when you removed all the new material - his website, IMDb links to films, online articles etc etc. Maybe a message should have been sent asking about adding sources before removing all my revisions/additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.152.171 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to biographies of living people need to be sourced as information is added; we are very sensitive about not allowing unverifiable statements about living people to remain. All of your edits are visible in the page history if you need to retrieve the changes (with sourcing, this time). However please note that WP:RSP#IMDB is not a reliable source and should not be used. His website can be used, but please see WP:ABOUTSELF for limitations on which kinds of statements can be cited to a person's own comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Page lock

Why have you locked the page? 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Super Bowl LV halftime show? I semi-protected it because it was receiving steady vandalism from unregistered contributors. If you would like to make changes to the page, you can suggest them on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see any vandalism but I will make edit requests. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

An award for you

	Satanic Communist Barnstar
	Hail Satan, Comrade! Gamaliel (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

😅 GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Redskin

Why did you say my edit was not constructive? Systematic racism cannot just be asserted without evidence. If there is evidence then it should be linked in the Redskin article, otherwise it can only be alleged. Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.220.151 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged" doesn't make sense in that place. It's like saying that someone "called for the end to alleged poverty". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)