I got an edit undone for a baseless allegation of edit warring, and the page was protected. My latest edit on the page was not an edit war, rather it was editing two other places in the article that were not awaiting consensus before they were edited. I was fixing now-redundant notes ([sic] replaces the need for any note that there was a grammatical error in a sentence, and "despite being trans and a woman herself" was something that should already be covered in the paragraph it was in, and neither of those things come at the expense of her POV.) TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I find it totally retarded for someone to be like "we need consensus on the talk page!!!!" and not try to get that consensus lmao. Deadass the last message on the thread is "yeah, this content shouldn't be on the Wiki" and nothing disputes that. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- You were implementing edits that were disputed, while the talkpage discussion of those disputes was ongoing. That's editwarring. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Only one edit was being disputed, and that was whether she should be compared to Milo. I left that sentence untouched while I removed other redundancies. How is THAT edit-warring? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- they are disputed, and I have as of yet been unable to address why I feel they should stay, albeit slightly altered. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- They were not disputed before, and you simply made a unilateral decision and cried wolf about an edit war. The page should not be locked. Other edits should be allowed to be made. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, they were disputed. I disputed your removal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I concede in the case of the first revision. My mistake. However, your reasoning that it's somehow "Whitewashing" deserves to be discussed. I clearly state in my revision that there is an error, in the quote itself no less. How then is it "whitewashing" to remove the exact note? It's clear that there's a mistake, I am not hiding that fact. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The whitewashing comment refers to your edits as a whole. You are specifically trying to make the article less critical of White. The reasoning seems to be that she is right and we are wrong because... You say so? Hence why we are are now using the talkpage to discuss these matters. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- How does that particular edit support this narrative? How is it "less critical" to point out that there is an error in her quote in an efficient way than to.... point out that there is an error in her quote? I'm removing falsehoods, people who say the sky is green when it's clearly blue. I'm glad you're using your powers so you can soapbox to people about why we should listen to the falsehood that the sky is green instead of simply stating that it's factually blue, and to be triggered at people when they actually use the talkpage indentations correctly. Must be nice, being so trigger-happy. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do not say "retarded" again. You said it twice. Carry on with the discussion. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 21:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also refrain from using "triggered". Stop being such a jerk. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume from your little outburst that you are what is called a Neo-reactionary. Now, I've been calm though slightly frustrated throughout this whole ordeal, perhaps amused that you think I'm "triggered", i.e. upset, but you have been quite angry it appears, so I'd tone down on the pathos attacks, stones in glass houses and all that. As for formatting, you are not using "proper formatting" for this website when you truncate someone's post. Those paragraphs are seperated for ease of reading, not so you can reply to each of them separately. That was a courtesy I did for you. "I'm removing falsehoods..." look, I understand that being a reactionary means you think everyone with an opposing viewpoint is out to "get" you, but please do cease these nonsense attacks on others, else I'll be forced to end the conversation and deny you your changes. I'm not bluffing by the way, I will end this conversation and deny you the changes you seek (due to a lack of consensus in your favor) if you keep up these accusations of bad faith. I've actually grown tired of explaining why your being disigenious when you use them, and I will not repeat myself indefinitely. "I'm glad you're using your powers so you can soapbox to people about why we should listen to the falsehood" I'm hardly soapboxing. I've been trying to get through your thick skull and communicate how intent works. Clearly that was a mistake, due to your paranoia. That's why I chose to try to convey that there might be further context that you are either ignoring or unable to understand. To be uttelry blunt, you've taken my brief jumping off point overly literally, and seem to be having some sort of meltdown. Perhaps we should take a break for today and pick this up again tomorrow? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm not using it right for this site, but I'm definitely following the standards of the other wikis I have been on since 2010. By stating that I am removing falsehoods (i.e. "the sky is green", an apt comparison which you yourself have made), I am not stating people are out to get me. I am instead removing demonstrably false information that you consistently fail to address and go on psychotic tangents about. It's amusing how the word triggered is forbidden and somehow indicates that I have a certain political view, yet to say so baselessly that I'm having a meltdown (exactly the same thing I accused you of) is a-okay lmao. I'm not angry, actually, far from it. I'm certainly impatient, but that's a far cry from angry. I think it's clear that you are having a meltdown, actually, because you consistently fail to address points that are being brought up, insist that falsehoods are valid, actually; and you focus more on projecting characteristics onto me instead of addressing the things I'm saying. Also, "thick skull"? You don't think you're angry? LMAO. You honestly never have to continue this convo. You have had no problem putting it off before, quite hilariously, and I fully expect you to do the same now. Or, actually at this point, to try to continue it out of spite because you don't want people to walk away realizing you actually don't have consensus in your favor (it is literally 1:1 at this point) and that you aren't capable of making sufficient arguments. Really, I couldn't care less. Hopefully people see this talk page in the future and realize the logical fallacies that make this page the way it is. Stay triggered, xoxo. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I said before, I had to get to sleep. It was literally 11:30 PM at the time. I'm sorry that I didn't deprive myself of sleep for you, your highness, but I consider getting rest more important than you. And again, your need to insist that I am "triggered" is very much in bad faith. As for how this indicates that you are a Neo-reactionary, well... That's who uses that term. Well, them and Neo-Nazis. And certain parts of the Left, though in that latter most case it's usually sarcastic. And well, you seemed to be having am meltdown. I apologize if that was incorrect, but given the number of times you accused me and others of dishonesty, as well as your rather impatient and increasingly aggressive behavior, it seemed to be the logical conclusion. And I'm sorry that my need to actually examine things disrupts your need to defend your para-social idols. I'm sure they and their hundreds of thousands of dollars will have to get by without you changing the page for another week or so... Anyway, calm down during your block, I'll see you later. Oh, and some friendly advice, it might be wise to not try evading the block, it'll only make things worse for yourself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Man, I still don’t get the issue with saying “retarded”. It’s just an insult, like a harsher version of calling someone an idiot.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, the word idiot has the exact same ableism attached to it, but in that case, the left realizes they don't want to censor themselves for once because it's such a reliable insult. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Complaining about this is making you just look more like a prick you know. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I really don't care how I look to you for agreeing with somebody else. I'm not complaining, I understand you're sensitive to the word and I haven't repeated it. I'm just concurring with another person. I don't care if I look like a prick to the likes of you. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @DuceMoosolini That's the problem.--Delibirda (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- What's the problem now?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|