User talk:2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F

August 2023

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Captainllama (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A consensus had already been reached on the talk pages- they were just never changed by anyone else that, due to being forgotten about. The changes were made based on the fact that the general consensus of the pages were that it should be changed to what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d09:ab88:4600:81a9:2b88:3234:bd1f (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Having checked the first 18 articles you edited, most have no discussion about genre on the talk page, and of those few that do, there is either no consensus or a clear consensus against your edits. Your edits also correlate closely with those of blocked sock-puppet accounts. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, if you find yourself unable to collaborate you have no place here. Captainllama (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That is quite literally impossible, as every single article's talk pages were read before any edits were made. To claim anything else is not only inconsiderate, it's also rude, nasty, slanderous, and just flat out spineless. You know nothing about me and so you decided to try to instigate the situation here for no reason. The same applies to making the false, misplaced assumption that my edits have anything to do with something that doesn't even exist, as there was absolutely nothing- no warnings or anything else like that- that came up saying that I couldn't make any edits because of being correlated to some "blocked sock-puppet accounts", which I have no idea what that even means. Is the first thing you say when welcoming somebody new to Wikipedia always to falsely accuse them of being related to some "sock-puppet"? I sure as hell hope not, because it would be damn near impossible to make any edits on any site while wearing sock puppets on your hands! Disrespecting me isn't going to cause you to "win" or receive any favors here- I assure you of that! I await an apology from you for making such inconsiderate, rude, nasty, slanderous, spineless comments to me, as well as for your attempts at instigating the situation by making me angry- which I am 100% immune to by the way. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You know, if you legitimately want to make Wikipedia a better place and actually have other users like and respect you, you wouldn't be insulting them are falsely accusing them of being something they're not. If you continue to resort to such tactics, absolutely nobody will pay any attention to you, and you'll be ignored by any and all other users, as they'll know better than to take you seriously. If you want to avoid that- and I'm sure you do- then the best thing to do would be apologize anytime you insult someone. Just saying! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you have taken personal offence, that is not my intention. My focus here is the integrity of the project. You say your edits were in response to consensus on "every single article's talk pages". Taking your first 12 edits:

Elvis (2022 film) you added "musical". There is no discussion, let alone consensus, on the talk page. Same with Walk the Line.

Ghost Rider (2007 film) No discussion of genre on talk page.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance No discussion of genre on talk page.

Blade (1998 film) The one comment on the talk page regarding genre says: "It seems WP:UNDUE to mention anything other than the primary superhero genre."

Blade: Trinity No consensus for your edit on talk page. Same with Hellboy (2004 film), Hellboy (2004 film), Hellboy (2019 film), Spawn (1997 film), Red Dragon (2002 film) etc etc...

The Sixth Sense The talk page has considerable discussion about the genre, and a clear consensus against including "horror". The discussion ends with the comment from an admin that "every editor arguing for the horror film genre is now blocked as a sock." The angrily immature tone employed by those editors seems very similar to that used by you here.

I see you have reinstated your edit on Everything Everywhere All at Once, because in that case there was indeed consensus reached on the talk page, and I apologise for having reverted that particular instance. If there are others where consensus genuinely has been reached then feel free to reinstate those also, as I stopped checking every single instance after the first dozen or so proved to be spurious. Whether or not you actually are the same person as the other sock puppets, your edits and language have been similarly disruptive and un-collaborative. Again, be assured that none of this is personal, and if you would simply abide by policy there would be no problem. Captainllama (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And yet you STILL reverted that one AGAIN. I'm starting to think you're just trying to mess with me. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as "Elvis" and "Walk The Line" are concerned, look up lists of musical biopic films. There- you'd find Elvis and Walk The Line listed. Not to forget to mention the fact that other films which all fit the exact same requirements as Elvis and Walk The Line do for musical biopics- even if they weren't on the same lists (Bohemian Rhapsody - 2018, Rocketman - 2019, Ray - 2004, etc) are listed as musical biopics on their pages. Considering they all fall under the same genre of musical biopics, for consistency's sake they should all by listed as the same genre- as they all fall under the same requirements. You say your focus is on the integrity of the project. Well, it doesn't scream "integrity" to have some films that are musical biopics correctly listed as such (Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman, Ray, etc.), whereas others (Elvis and Walk The Line)- are not. That doesn't scream "integrity"- it just screams laziness and inconsistency. We're both for the same thing here, and so the time to make these things consistent has arrived. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The same applies to the superhero films that were changed. Without going into it all again, it's not consistent to list some films that fall under the same requirements as the others (Brightburn, Constantine, Swamp Thing, etc.) to be listed as "superhero horror" whereas others that are the same thing aren't. Laziness and inconsistency is not what Wikipedia should be known for, so it's time to get with the program and make these things consistent! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

As for The Sixth Sense, that is a film that is quite literally known as one of only 6 horror films in Academy Awards history to be nominated for Best Picture- alongside The Exorcist, Jaws, The Silence of the Lambs, Black Swan, and Get Out. Out of those 6 films- only The Sixth Sense and Jaws aren't listed as horror films, even though general worldwide consensus is that those films are 100% horror films, and should be treated as such, and once again- so as to not sound like a broken record, it's also for consistency's sake that they were changed, because again- we don't want inconsistencies here on Wikipedia! Just because some other so-called "editors" who don't care about that sort of thing said incorrect information does NOT mean that they are correct- even more so because they said that just because they didn't like the fact that some random editor knew more on the subject that they did and they refused to accept it, so they blocked that poor individual solely out of spite for them improving these articles more than they ever could. I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be biased, correct? As a new editor myself, I can't stand finding out about cases of people being picked on by a bunch of grown-ass adults just because those morons believe that that person is trying to sabotage something that they've worked so hard on, even though that is not the case. I was absolutely APPALLED when I came across the way that person was treated on the talk page for "The Sixth Sense", and it absolutely SICKENED me that those responsible were not disciplined and/or fired for that! That shouldn't be acceptable - EVER! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:81A9:2B88:3234:BD1F (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You say "And yet you STILL reverted that one AGAIN." No, I didn't. Be more careful.

As for the rest of what you have written, what it all boils down to is this: you still don't get it. Everything you need to know is contained in the very first sentence on this page: "Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first." This isn't something I dreamt up to annoy you, it is Wikipedia policy. If you don't comply with Wikipedia policy your edits will be reverted, which wastes not just your time and resources but that of other editors as well.

" look up lists of musical biopic films" - No.

"for consistency's sake they should all by listed as the same genre" -No.

"the time to make these things consistent has arrived" - No.

"The same applies to the superhero films that were changed." - No, it doesn't.

"it's time to get with the program and make these things consistent! - No.

You are repeatedly demonstrating that you just. don't. get. it. None of the above means you can just bulldoze through the changes that you want. Wikipedia is not here to be what you think is "consistent", or what you think is "correct", or even what you think reliable sources say. It achieves consistency and correctness by establishing consensus about what reliable sources say. If you want those changes you must discuss on the talk page and back it up with reliable sources in order to gain consensus that the change be made. It doesn't matter if a film is "quite literally known as one of only 6 horror films in Academy Awards history to be nominated" if you don't bring it up to support your argument on the talk page. It doesn't matter if "some random editor knew more on the subject". "That poor individual" was not blocked "solely out of spite", they were blocked for behaving in exactly the same way you are - changing genres without consensus and then going on an emotional rant when pulled up on it. It doesn't matter if you're "APPALLED", it doesn't matter if you're "SICKENED", it doesn't matter if you don't find it acceptable. Claiming consensus has been reached on the talk page when no such discussion has taken place is obviously unacceptable. The policy is very simple: if you want to change, add, or remove genres, take it to the talk page and gain consensus first. To reiterate, it's not personal. It is policy. If you would simply abide by policy there would be no problem.If you find yourself unable to collaborate then, well, what I said earlier stands. Captainllama (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, YOU are the one who is demonstrating that YOU just. don't. get. it.- not me. I get it just fine- hence the reason I'm actually IMPROVING Wikipedia articles with my edits- UNLIKE you. You also 100% DID remove my edit on "Everything Everywhere All At Once" not just once, but TWICE now- with intention to make it appear as if I'm involved in an edit war even though it was agreed upon in that article's talk page. I've had to change it back twice now, and I will continue to change that one back as many times as necessary until you actually get it. STOP. CHANGING. THAT. EDIT. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that those so-called "reliable" sources that Wikipedia uses aren't actually reliable, correct? In fact- they're nothing more than lies and misinformation- which is why other editors who know that keep removing them. Since you CLEARLY aren't for improving Wikipedia, it's time you began to learn that those "sources" aren't even sources- they're BS! You see, THAT is why Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source by the vast majority of the Earth's population, because when you use nothing but unreliable misinformation, it tends to show others that anything written on that site is treated like a joke, and that is why it's time to change those nonsensical, outdated ways and make way for the future of Wikipedia- which people like myself are the ones working towards! We're not going to let misinformed idiots stop us- I assure you! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh- and here's another thing that if you aren't already aware of, you should become aware of immediately. That so-called "blocking" thing you keep bringing up? It's BS! Not only that- it doesn't even work! For one- it just makes people more and more angry, and gives them more of a reason to get around the so-called "system" that is used to block (and there's ALWAYS ways around that- I can assure you of that!), and when that happens, it does NOT end well for sites that continue with such outdated nonsense! That's why there's a number of sites that keep growing and growing that have removed that as an option- such as Twitter- because those sites know that there's literally no reason to do such a thing! Second- it has SERIOUS negative effects on other people's mental health, and can and WILL lead to even more serious repercussions if their feelings aren't taken seriously! Is that really something that you want on your conscience- somebody taking their own life because of your asinine actions? That's why it's time to move on from such an outdated "policy" and start focusing on actually improving the overall Wikipedia project! Whether you like it or not- that's what I'm here to do, and your inability to improve Wikipedia- while unfortunate- is NOT going to stop me- or any other right-minded individuals for that matter- from improving this site and actually turning it into a reliable source- which- in its current state with its incredibly outdated policies- is something it will NEVER be. Unlike you, I'm here to IMPROVE Wikipedia, which is why my edits are there solely to improve- NOT vandalize, cause an edit war, or anything else like that. Just figured you should know! For further proof of that, read this! https://fischerinstitute.com/psychology-of-blocking-others-online/#:~:text=It%20can%20impact%20mental%20health,through%20the%20issues%20at%20hand. [Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B|2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B]] (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

---