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

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

Online events:

New: Climate and environment | Public domain
Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest
Year-long initiative: Women's rights
Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Sidney Powell

Hi GorillaWarfare, I have objected to the closure both in rationale (rejecting out-of-hand the weight of Support !votes by claiming they did not provide enough sources, especially after both NonReproBlue and Neutrality provided multiple WP:RS supporting the wording) and failing to account for the change in coverage during the time the discussion ran.

I'm also a little disappointed that you didn't re-check your own work on the subject. The New York Times is even now explicitly using the wording "conspiracy theorist" to describe Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your message on ProcrastinatingReader's talk page. Have you seen my comment at the article talk page? It's improper to unilaterally overrule closes one disagrees with (especially in RfCs where one has voted, or in Cozy's case, started). As I've said in that comment, if the sources have indeed shifted so significantly, there can be another discussion.

It's not the job of closers of RfCs to review all available sourcing themselves–that would effectively be a supervote. Closers simply evaluate the opinions expressed at the RfC and articulate the overall consensus. If sources shift during the RfC and that needs to be taken into account, that should be brought to the attention of those who have participated in the discussion so they can re-review their !vote. From what I can see, these new sources were not mentioned at all during the RfC, but now the closer is getting flak for somehow not considering them, which is unfair to them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Branco

Hi there! You protected Juan Branco last month pursuant to an RFPP request. There are some serious ongoing issues with the subject of the article making edits to the page and complaining on Twitter about potentially libelous/defamatory material, blanking, etc. A recent BLP noticeboard thread was closed after the editor claiming to be the subject appeared to make legal threats. I have fully protected the page again, but was hoping you might be able to weigh in. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 08:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: The account User:Brancojuan was banned for legal threats under an IP here. There are newspaper articles about him not only embellishing his own article over the years but also about him pretending to be a "Wikipedia admin" and threatening another editor through their employer. The article was deleted once in 2016 and nominated for deletion again in February 2020 - I offered to revise it to remove the NPOV and non encyclopedic elements. Insults and threats from various SPAs, sockpuppets and accounts claiming to be the subject followed ever since. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fvasconcellos: Indefinite full protection seems quite extreme given most (all?) recent disruption has come from IP editors. Why wasn't semi-protection sufficient, or even ECP? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I agree with GW here. Indef full protection is overboard in this situation, Fvasconcellos --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given—from what I could tell by the talk page—the nature and years-long duration of the dispute, the fairly recent involvement of two autoconfirmed users, and the history of sockpuppetry by the subject, I thought full protection would be most appropriate, and made it indefinite simply so that disruption would not resume immediately after it lapsed. If I went overboard, please feel free to reduce it to a more adequate level/duration! I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fvasconcellos: Full protection should be used extremely rarely, and usually only for short durations–for example if there is a major editing dispute and autoconfirmed editors are edit warring without discussing changes. It completely locks down editing on a page, and even administrators are expected not to edit through full-protection without explicit consensus. From the disruption you're describing, I think it would be more appropriate to use indefinite semi-protection on the article, and address issues with autoconfirmed editors/sockpuppets on a per-editor basis. If you think semiprotection will be insufficient, then I would apply a longish-term (1 year?) ECP under BLP discretionary sanctions authorized via the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case, and then revisit in a year whether extension of ECP or stepping down to semiprotection (or no protection) is reasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. ECP outside of ArbCom enforcement and the BLP case are both new to me after many years of inactivity from admin duties—I will re-familiarize myself with the relevant policies. And happy new year! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fvasconcellos: If you'd be more comfortable I could be the one to apply the ECP under BLP DS. Happy New Year to you as well! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all—happy to do so. (Should have downgraded before going offline, actually.) And thanks again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good :) Don't forget to drop a line in WP:DSLOG to note it. I know I forget sometimes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

" Of course I like to talk to you, Dimitri." Thanks for the thanks, but the mysterious Aquilaeightynine (who has made almost 5,000 edits over a decade but has no User page and only "Talked" five times, back in 2014) changed my citation in Letko (sic). Then you changed his or hers while I was adding the CD features, which left my cite in progress without the refname, "heart," that I'd given it. Am I doing something that needs improvement (aside from living my life, of course), regarding my citation format? Also, I know the boundaries. We "...can't fight here. This is the War Room!" Activist (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: Ahh, the joys of trying to edit heavily-edited pages without conflicts. I prefer using citation templates rather than manually formatting references, as Aquila89 did, since it ensures a standard format throughout the page. That said, there's nothing wrong with manually formatting references as long as they follow the citation style of the page. As for the refname, I used the visual editor to change the citation to use the citation template, which auto-names the citations with the fairly useless ":0" style names if the citation is reused anywhere. I prefer more descriptive refnames too, so my change from "heart" to ":0" was an artifact of the VE and not an intentional choice or critique of your citation style. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max and Ruthie appear to be siblings. Can you confirm that? Activist (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that they appear to be siblings, they look very much alike! But they are not actual siblings, unless there was some incredible coincidence–Max was rescued in 2017; a previously-owned adult cat who was presumably abandoned and spent a few years living as a stray outside of an apartment building in the Boston area. Ruthie was rescued in 2018 as a several-weeks-old kitten born to a feral mom in a backyard in a totally different part of the Boston area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the info about the ":O" business. I've long wondered where that came from. Activist (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only DNA testing will reveal the truth. "Incredible coincidence?" Perhaps the absent father was the Wilt Chamberlain of feral cats, http://static.espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110836.html though I think that was a tall tale. Activist (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, GorillaWarfare!

Happy New Year!

GorillaWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Moneytrees: Happy New Year! Thanks for all your awesome work this year. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Despite our having some recent differences on the Sidney Powell RFC, I still highly respect your analysis and am thankful for your taking all the time you have with me. Hope you're bundled up safe for this new year with all the COVID insanity going on. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IHateAccounts: Happy New Year! All editors disagree sometimes, I think, and it's the mark of a good editor when one can continue to respect and get along with those with whom they disagree. Thanks for all your hard work on the project recently; I know you haven't had the easiest go of it. I am doing my best to stay safe and healthy, and I hope you're able to do the same! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I would be a liar to suggest, and you a fool to believe, that there is no agenda in this post. But beyond that agenda, I find myself respecting you as an editor and intellect, so I am pleased to wish you a happy new year. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Cozy. I apologize for the timing of the AE request, it would've been kinder for me not to address this issue on a holiday. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're apologizing too much! You have a policy basis for your complaint, which I accept. I do not accept that any of these incidents (which involved edit warring the addition of true material, cited not in the lede but elsewhere in the article) are particularly serious violations (with the exception of the Peinovich thing, which upon reflection was serious misconduct on my part).

But this is a value judgment about which friends can disagree. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Cyndi Lauper

Hi GW, I've tried three noticeboards this evening. Any help will be great. Happy New Year! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Diannaa just protected the article. I reverted a lingering piece of vandalism, but hopefully that'll take care of it. Thanks for letting me know, and feel free to give a shout if it continues (though I may not be online much longer this evening). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you both. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Woman's Barnstar

	The Working Woman's Barnstar
	Thank you for your impressive patience and persistence, mediating with the incessant flow of campaigning single-purpose accounts on a number of difficult talk pages. —Paleo Neonate – 12:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecondedTuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any word?

Hi, GW - still no word from Berean Hunter? Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: None that I've heard. I asked around in mid-November and someone who knows them was going to reach out, but they haven't heard back either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: In case you haven't seen, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#changes to functionary team. Definitely worrying, I hope he's alright. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah12354

Hello i have a question about the 2020-21 NFL playoffs --Elijah12354 (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah12354: What is it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When do u mean by auto confirmed or confirmed access --Elijah12354 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thank you

I personally avoid current event articles on Wikipedia at almost all costs. Seeing you already editing in full-force January 2021 United States Capitol protests is seriously impressive. Thank you :). Perryprog (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used to avoid them too, they can be messy. Thanks for the note! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to say this too. Thanks for your (and everyone else's) general excellence there; I'm averse to breaking news coverage and the article was really helpful understanding what happened. Ovinus (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's been helpful! Honestly I find working on breaking news articles helps me process what's happening—it's generally better for me than just doomscrolling :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit, that word describes me all too well.... Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless efforts to speedily improve 2021 storming of the United States Capitol! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you...

Could you take a glance at [1]? Seems to be an underage editor on wikipedia who's gone down an excessively toxic rabbit hole. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're wrong. ;) (See this, for instance.) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: I was going by [2] where the editor mentions "when I sent a request to my dad for more time on bitchute" that made me think they are underage. But... yikes. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I understand that part, but I think this person dug that hole themselves, rather than falling into it. Thanks for noting it. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies: Thank you for looking into it! I think this[[3]] might be another one based on this edit [4] IHateAccounts (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. Thank you. GW, did you see our president's most recent video? Very exciting that he's back on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Ugh, I hadn't... that didn't last long. Thanks for dealing with the sock, Drmies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look now but... [5] IHateAccounts (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

My section got erased unless it was no longer needed. Cwater1 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1: It was archived: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol/Archive 1#Current Event. Because the talk page is so active, things get archived quite quickly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I have not personally attacked anyone. Not even remotely. I am aware of the tactics to silence any opposing views. This is two to silencing me; claiming I'm violating terms, claiming I'm using talk as a forum. Claiming I'm personally attacking. If I personally attacked anyone, anyone could cite a specific line. All I did was defend. Somehow this too will be construed as some kind of personal attack even though nobody is mentioned and I'm following a protocol others are using. J1DW (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J1DW: Comment on content, not contributors. Feel free to suggest any specific changes you think ought to be made, backed with reliable sources. Quit with the "I'm being silenced by Wikipedians with leftist agendas". It's not "silencing" you to object to your suggestions that we should be making changes that contradict Wikipedia policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Also for your work on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol - I've been dipping in and out of it over the past couple of days, and it reminded me of why I hate editing current events articles so much. I have massive respect for anyone who has the patience to keep at it the way you have. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And thank you for your work there as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. It's in my backyard - I rehearse up there on Tuesday nights, for God's sakes. I guess I'm taking it more personally than I otherwise might. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, I didn't know that. Stay safe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, physically, I'm fine - choir rehearsals are on pause due to the pandemic, and I live in the suburbs. But even so, it's a neighborhood I know and love well. Fortunately the insanity seems to have been confined mostly to Capitol grounds and not the surrounding residential/commercial areas. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. It's jarring when things like this happen in one's backyard; there was some conflict with police, property damage, and various other unrest in Boston this summer, but nothing like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To a point, living in this area one is used to it - the church where we rehearse is near the Supreme Court, so we occasionally see evening protests in the area. And my office has been protested before, given that I've worked for one or two unpopular agencies in my day. But those are, for the most part, non-violent.

Boston, now...they do have a history of agitation, don't day? There was an incident a while ago...something about a harbor? And taxes? It's been a while, though, so maybe I have the details wrong. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*sips tea* GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although as a Southerner, I feel compelled to note that we had a Tea Party first. (Actually a really interesting little story, which I didn't know until visiting Edenton a few years ago.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I learned something new today! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Vladimir Zelenko

Hello! I recently came across the article about Vladimir Zelenko, which is extremely one-sided in its current form. Could I get your quick opinion on whether the subject is notable enough to try salvaging the article? If so, I'm happy to try to do so; I just would rather not go through it all if it should be deleted in the end anyway. The relevant sources seem to be this NYT article and similar ones that basically amount to "this is a guy who made a questionable medical claim back in March that medical experts warned about, and whose claims were then promoted right-wing media". —DanCherek (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: Wow, that is a bit of a mess. Someone might be able to make a WP:BLP1E argument for deletion, but there are some pretty solid sources (including that NYT article). If you want to be extra sure you could bring it to AfD first, but I'd say it's worth salvaging. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian behavior

Hi. I couldn't stop to notice that you are impeding other contributors to edit some articles in Wikipedia. By that I mean you won't let any other contributors modify them in any sensible way. The articles I'm referring are supposed to be about tech platforms, but a high load of political bias were drawn upon them in your edits (ex: Gab, Parler). I also couldn't help to notice by your profile page that you lean left politically. Please, consider being less authoritarian and letting other people contribute sensibly to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People can and do contribute sensibly to those articles. It is those who wish to modify them in ways that are not sensible who I take issue with. There is no singular decision-maker on what can and can't go in an article—as with anything on Wikipedia, we decide based on consensus. If I have objected to a change on one of those articles and you think I am wrong, you (or anyone) are more than welcome to begin a discussion to achieve consensus one way or the other, and if consensus goes against me (which it certainly has in the past), I accept that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Molly. You don't know me, so let me introduce myself. My name is David Bryant. I'm almost 70 years old. I'm retired. Once upon a time I was a hippy. Peace and love are groovy. 😇

I now live in Texas. And I have an excellent education. I graduated from Caltech in 1973. My primary specialty is mathematics, but I have also read a tremendous amount of literature from various eras and cultures, ranging from the Hindu Vedas and the Tibetan Book of the Dead to Roger Zelazny (sci-fi) and Philip Roth. Oh, yeah. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2007, just like you. I worked on the math articles quite a lot ten or more years ago. Things eventually got a little hot and heavy when I ventured into some controversial topics, such as Church of Scientology. If you wish to see some of the arguments in which I was inolved, feel free to browse through the archives of my talk page.

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but 2804:14C:65D2:4329:34B2:2C66:95B2:9A85 is absolutely right. I have reviewed several of your edits from the past week or so, and you are clearly a crusader on a mission: to prevent people who disagree with you from editing your pet articles. That's not NPV. That's subverting Wikipedia into a left-wing propaganda tool. Please stop. Even "right-wing extremists" have a right to be heard. Instead of hating them,and shouting them down, you really ought to open your heart and mind a little bit. Love your neighbors. C ya. DavidCBryant 11:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'm sorry that you disagree with reliable sources and reality. But this should be a wake-up call to a lot of people - they spent years believing every word that came out of the mouth of a notorious liar. Wikipedia provides facts, such as the fact that there was no significant electoral fraud and that Trump lost a free and fair election by millions of votes, and that content moderation of a privately-owned and operated service is not government censorship but rather a capitalist decision that hosting false speech which incites seditious violence is neither good for the country nor for business. Those facts do not care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @DavidCBryant: making ridiculous attacks like "That's subverting Wikipedia into a left-wing propaganda tool. Please stop" doesn't make anyone want to trust that you're here for any other reason than WP:POVPUSHing behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidCBryant: Since you've been editing Wikipedia for so long, I assume you know that editors should not accuse other editors of misbehavior without evidence. Can you please specify where I have demonstrated "hatred" for anyone or "shouted someone down"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm she shouted me down on the gab talk page :D lol not that big of a deal. life goes on, wikipedia will go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:50A0:E5E2:4B47:875F (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if you feel that an editor politely asking you to provide reliable sources when you suggest changes to be "shouting you down", you may not enjoy editing Wikipedia very much. That is a core requirement of the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the definition of "shout down" it reads "to shout so that (someone who is speaking) cannot be heard

The crowd shouted him down when he tried to give his speech." Webster's. Please see that I was only suggesting that a change needed to be made, not that a certain change was necessary. You quickly changed the subject to my lack of sources and hit me over the head with that fact. I personally dont care either way, but i would like to confirm David's assertion that you have attacked me.

Authoritarian barnstar

	Authoritarian barnstar
	Congratulations, comrade! Gamaliel (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) +1. Your efforts to suppress the true voice of the People have not gone unnoticed :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]