User talk:71.175.134.136

April 2025

Hi! I noticed you removed content from List of individual cetaceans without explaining why. In the future, please write a descriptive edit summary, like say, "Remove Finding Nemo entry because [reason]."

If the removal was a mistake, don't worry; it has been undone. If you wanted to experiment, you can use the sandbox instead. On the other hand, if there was good reason (as outlined at WP:RVREASONS), you can go ahead and remove the content again; or, if you're not sure, please bring it up on the article's talk page. If you have any other questions/comments/concerns, you can reply to this message.

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — W.andrea (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's goddamn stupid. "The blue whale in finding nemo"??? On a list of "individual cetaceans"? Are you people insane? 71.175.134.136 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be respectful. Why do you think it's "stupid"? In polite terms, why do you think it should be removed from the list? See the link I mentioned for valid reasons. — W.andrea (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because it's irrelevant. The bullet point is literally and entirely "the blue whale from finding nemo". What are we talking about 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me what we're talking about. The blue whale from Finding Nemo is an individual cetacean, isn't it? — W.andrea (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so is "the blue whale from life of pi"; so is "the blue whale from return of the giants"; so are "all the individual blue whales from kingdom of the blue whale"; so is "the blue what from free willy"; so are "the blue whales in the pod from California Science Center's IMAX Theater's 'Blue Whales 3D' exhibit".

I want you to stop attempting to make a point and tell me if you understand the ridiculousness of all this. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be respectful. Reference: Wikipedia:Civility. I wasn't "attempting to make a point"; I was asking you to elaborate your argument. Writing "Stop it" in an edit summary is also rude. Reference: Wikipedia:SUMMARYNO.

In any case, thanks for elaborating and I see what you're saying now: it's insignificant. In Wikipedia terms, it's not notable; more specifically, see List selection criteria. I started a new topic on the talk page and you're welcome to join the discussion there.

BTW, you might want to create an account. It would give you several benefits like letting you pick a username instead of using your IP address (which might change if you're on a dynamic IP) and that would help other editors remember who you are, creating a watchlist of articles you're interested in, and privileges like creating pages and uploading media. You don't have to provide any personal info. For more details, see Why create an account?

— W.andrea (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was being as respectful as I'm going to be, but also I don't care about the wikipedia guidelines. It's common sense that such an entry doesn't belong in the list (the list itself being superfluous and ridiculous on its own). 71.175.134.136 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the designated arbiter of what is common sense. We have policies to guide our content- we can override them with good reason, but you need to civilly make a case to do so in collaboration with other editors. This is a group project, not 71.175's encyclopedia. You need to work with others, and you need to be civil when doing so. 331dot (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. And yet the change I made was ultimately agreed with.

2. Common sense is objective and I correctly identified it for you, in this case. You're welcome.

3. This is as civil as I'm going to get and I don't 'need' to do anything.

4. There is only collaboration on this website insofar as it aligns with the sociopolitical agenda of the "editors" with the most power. Neutrality and particularly opposing viewpoints are systematically pushed out. Spare me the "policy and collaboration" hypocrisy, pal. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no agenda other than summarizing what independent sources say; if you would rather stay in your bubble and only read what you want to hear or what fits your views, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You summarize the sources that agree with your views. You pretend that the opposing ones don't exist, and you systematically delete edits citing them and ban users who persist. Then you attempt to gaslight the situation away, just as you're doing now. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

→ Discussion continues below: § Continuation

No hypocricy- we're civil and collaborative with people who want to be civil and collaborative with us. If you want Wikipedia to reflect a particular ideology, you need to be here, participating in a civil manner. If your views prevent you from being civil with us, you should go somewhere else, frankly. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're civil and collaborative with people whose sociopolitical ideologies align with your own. YOU want wikipedia to reflect a particular ideology, you gaslighting scumbag. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling is the last resort of people who lose logical arguments. No one is gaslighting here other than you. I don't want Wikipedia to reflect any ideology, I want it to summarize what independent reliable sources say. If that's not being done, I want to hear about it in a civil conversation about how best to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am winning the argument. What I described is exactly what happens here on this site. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. It just isn't. Either you work with us to change it, or you can call us scumbags and remove all pretense of basic human decency and civility. But you clearly see a conspiracy around every corner in our post-truth world. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I can think of half a dozen concrete and discrete examples of this systematic leftwashing, just off of the top of my head. I will choose one and show you, give me a few. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the change I made was ultimately agreed with.

Well, I said I'm inclined to agree. I'm still open to being convinced either way. I don't think the list is at risk of being overrun with obscure fictional whales, but on the other hand I want to keep out insignificant entries.

I don't 'need' to do anything.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then yes you need to follow certain rules, e.g. the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, e.g.

Every Wikimedian, whether they are a new or experienced editor [...] is responsible for their own behaviour [... which] will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants

I disagree with your other points too, but 331dot has already replied to them better than I could.

— W.andrea (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in wanting to contribute here. You aren't interested in summarizing from a neutral point of view. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bye! — W.andrea (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see ya 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also I don't really give a shit about your "list of individual cetaceans". I was searching for something in particular, came across it, and fixed it for you. Feel free to un-fix it at your leisure. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calling an editor a gaslighting scumbag does not help the project and does not help you. Neither does suggesting that other editors lack integrity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you do, in general, lack integrity. Perhaps you individually are different and not in power. The guy I replied to is not. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation

← Discussion continued from above

We don't pretend "opposing sources" don't exist, nor do we judge sources on their viewpoint. That's simply incorrect. If you have sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control, please offer them. The only one gaslighting here is you. Again, if you want Wikipedia to reflect a conservative ideology, you need to be here, participating, and that requires you to be civil. Treat others as you want to be treated. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page about the pro starcraft 2 player scarlett was locked because the edits did not reflect the agenda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_(gamer). Scarlett is described as "the first woman" to win a major tournament, the edits were to make it "the first transgender individual" to win a major tournament. The changes were reverted and the page was put into protected mode.

In the Talk page for this article, the running narrative from the editors in power is to the effect of "the sources don't care that she's transgender, so neither do we." This is not only false, but intentionally misleading:

Just from the first page of google search results. Are we going to argue that The Guardian and AVClub aren't "reliable"? Two of those linked articles discuss Scarlett revealing the gender transition FIRSTHAND. Is the subject of the article itself not a "reliable" source? 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this individual but the sources seem to say "she". Policy (MOS:GENDERID) states "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Since this individual is open about their transition, that could certainly be mentioned somewhere. If you feel this policy is not being applied properly in this situation(I don't know), that is a discussion you should be having on the article talk page.

Be advised that gender issues/controversies are a formally designated contentious topic. (see below) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was not about referring to Scarlett as "he" or "she". Did you read my comment? 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying it is wrong to refer to this individual as "the first woman" to win a particular tournament, so I guess I thought that was being disputed. I haven't examined your links in detail(just glanced) so I don't know what is correct in terms of the "first" here. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I'm saying, because Scarlett is objectively not "the first woman" to win a tournament. Scarlett is the first "transgender woman" to win a tournament. However, that side of the discussion isn't even presented... it's forcibly removed from the 'article' altogether. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is up to you to convince others of the merits of your arguments, preferably(but not necessarily) based in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the discussion fails to satisfy you, dispute resolution is available. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, I agree. In this real world, it's not realistic. The 'editors' in power have a very specific and immutable sociopolitical agenda that cannot be changed. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a transgender relative and all they want is to be treated with respect and dignity just as you are. Wikipedia is welcoming to people of all races, nationalities, genders, religions, etc. If that's a "sociopolitical agenda", guilty. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that the article should be changed to disrespect Scarlett. I'm saying it should be changed to reflect reality, the words of Scarlett herself, and the rest of the sources that don't call Scarlett the "first woman" anything. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it will be easy for you to convince other editors of this and you shouldn't complain about an "agenda". 331dot (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the previous attempts resulted in the page being locked, multiple users being banned, and the topic being abandoned as closed. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles are blocked to prevent disruption, especially in contentious topic areas. It's unfortunate that people choose to be disruptive making such actions necessary. If you feel that this is being done unfairly or wrongly, appeal to the Arbitration Committee. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, appeal to the 'committee' comprised of the 'editors' in power who themselves are primarily responsible for the pushing of this agenda. Sounds like a great use of my time. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also invited you to detail your issues at Talk:Rudy Giuliani. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jesus that article is a disgrace. You probably weren't alive at the time, but Giuliani was viewed as a national goddamn hero for some time after 9/11. The 'article' spends all of two sentences mentioning that before IMMEDIATELY internally disputing it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the towers come down on TV. If he wanted more of the lead dedicated to his 9/11 leadership, he shouldn't have gotten on the Trump election denialism train. Nevertheless, that's an issue for the talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, he aligned with the agenda's number one enemy, so now he's been a scumbag forever. You people are disgusting. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything of the kind. He supported Trump's election denialism claims. That's a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm so disgusting why am I here, trying to work with you? It's because I want varied points of view here. This is a community. I'm trying to help you get your views across, but you can only name call. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that you, yourself, are disgusting. I am saying that your echo-chamber-dwelling faction as a whole is disgusting as an entity. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you're not in an echo chamber? 331dot (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, I'm not in an echo chamber. That's part of the problem- you read my words and you dismiss "oh, conservative". I'm not a conservative. I am staunchly anti-religion. I am personally opposed to a large portion of the traditionalist values held by the ideology at large.

What I, in fact, am is anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-bias... "anti-liberalism-as-it-exists-on-twitter" maybe. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it wrong, then, Apologies. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the planet for contributing to this slanted drivel becoming the world's de facto primary source of knowledge. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the topic is contentious, is it not therefore particularly important to fairly represent all sides of the contention? This is precisely indicative of the echo chamber that you are stuck in. You see a challenging idea and immediately in your mind it's "conservative", it's a "conspiracy" theory "in our post-truth world", it's written by someone "in a bubble". Then it's dismissed and the article is locked and only the in-power agenda is represented. It's a farce. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not provide equal time to all sides when reliable sources do not, see WP:FALSEBALANCE.

An article is not locked to keep out viewpoints, but to prevent disruption. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided several reliable sources which do. I provided an example of Scarlett herself saying it. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

haha false balance? Fifty percent of the country doesn't agree with that idea. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a global project not limited t.o the US or Canada 331dot (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing an english-language article, so surely we can limit this to predominantly english-speaking countries. The United States is, by far, the largest of those. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India is calling. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's play that game. Find a 'reliable' source polling the Indian population on gender politics. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I want varied viewpoints here, but they have to want to be here, guess you don't. I'm going to invest my time in people who can be civil and want to collaborate, not with people who only want to read what they agree with. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be here, no. Crusading against the controlling left in an attempt to centralize this site is not what I want my life to become. 71.175.134.136 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.