User talk:Turtlescrubber

ACLU

I responded to your comments on the talk page of the article

Thanks JodyB_talk 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments

hello. Why are you reverting my things all the time? Why not discuss and keep some of them instead of erasing them all so swiftly? --Jim732 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? I am discussing them on the talk page. Seriously. You are going against consensus and have violated the 3rr. Very strange. Turtlescrubber 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for responding to your edit of that one discussion but I meant why change all my edits jsut because you don't like one of them? The one you talked about we fixed together. It looks good. :) --Jim732 16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Very strange indeed. Turtlescrubber 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Al Gore/Futurama

I realize that I was being a bit of a dick and I apologize (I am wondering if I have the temperament to edit here at all). As I said before I do agree that this deserves some space in the article. I do worry about people trying to add on family guy and south park stuff, but now that you have cited it (and Al Gore was directly involved) I don't think it will be much of a problem. The only thing I have an issue with is the picture but as I have badgered you already and you have done quite a bit of work I will just kind of back off and see if anyone else has an opinion. Btw, he is also going to be appearing in the next futurama dvd movie. FYI. Turtlescrubber 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about being brusque. You were trying to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia, we ended up with a better article as a result, I didn't take it personally, and it's something that happens to everybody here from time to time. Just remember that whenever you start feeling stressed, it's OK to go take a walk and get a cup of tea. I agree with what you're saying about other pop-culture depictions of Gore, which is why I tried to take pains to emphasize his personal involement in this particular show. His role in the next movie is interesting; I had heard a rumor about that, but wasn't able to source it with a casual effort. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism and the TDS/Colbert

Hey there,

You keep reverting the link where Colbert says 'Um, we are liberal'. I am interested to know your interpretation of the word 'we' from that source. What is it an admission of in your opinion?Yeago 12:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means as individuals they are liberals. What does that have to do with their shows, other that original research. Turtlescrubber 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not read the quote:

CP: Some critics have accused “The Daily Show” of being overly liberal though you have mix of Democrat and Republican guests, and liberals are the butt of jokes sometimes. How do you respond to the critique?

SC: Um, we are liberal

He was asked a question in the context of his work at The Daily Show. I do not believe it is original research to assume he framed his answer in the context of his work at The Daily Show. In fact I think it is the most likely interpretation. I do not understand your resistance to this thought but I am afraid we cannot have a useful discussion if you are unwilling to understand this interpretation.Yeago 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-random answer

Actually I've given some thought to your question, or rather to its inverse: how can we get such people to stop editing after they've been banned? CSY has always treated bans and blocks as inconveniences. I think he started using sock puppets for edits to special fields: user:LesbianLatke for LGBT and feminist issues, user:WehrWolf for German and heraldry articles, etc. While he was too lazy or sloppy to keep them properly segregated, he got used to using socks. At the time I was trying to convince him to stick with one account, with limited success. I got him to use just his main IP address for a while, but that IP address got blocked for cause by some other admins while I was away and he returned to sockpuppeting. He's long since given up any pretence of obeying blocks or other Wikipedia rules.

Some of returning blocked editors appear to be like moths drawn to a light, with a compulsion they can't resist. In other cases I think it's a feeling of superiority - that the editor knows more than others and doing WP a favor by providing that knowledge therefore mere policies and functionaries shouldn't interfere. And in other cases it becomes a matter of spite or revenge, of gaming the system and showing that they can and will defy rules just to show who's got the real power. Finally, some editors have a single obsession and will never stop trying to express themselves on that one issue.

I think CSY is a mix of these. Wikipedia has become a habit for him, he enjoys the game of evading detection, and he thinks little of the administration or its rules. He isn't a one-topic editor, though his interests are well-defined. Given the tools we have I don't see how to better handle this situation. We've tried negotiating with him to allow him to edit, we've tried ignoring him, we've tried blocking whenever found. Do you have any suggestions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edting without interruption

Vis-a-vis your question on Help desk, you could also consider using a Sandbox for your drafts, which will allow you to work free from other editors' interruptions. Once satisfied with your efforts, you can copy them into the article. Jim Dunning | talk 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: THEME SONG HILARY 2008

Bummer! I thought I was going to get the Democrats to give something back to Lesbians but again they are just as bad as Republicans. Will still have to vote for Hilary. Thanks for the message Cr8tiv June 20 5pm

Newsletter remarks section

Hi.. I'm just wondering why you think that heading is better than what was there. It's not really a campaign response, it's his response, and he said that his campaign manager wanted him to take credit for saying those. So, it's actually the opposite of the campaign response. If you think the past heading was not good enough, it's fine to change it, but I don't think the "Campaign response" thing is better... it also gives the impression that his official presidential campaign has responded or something.--Gloriamarie 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your suggestions for improving the section? How would you change it? I don't think titling it "Campaign response" when that is not what it is helps in any way. There has been a neutrality tag there before; it doesn't matter as long as it sparks discussion.--Gloriamarie 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko

Turtlescrubber, am I being unreasonable or do I have a point? User:Noroton has surely jumped the gun. What is the process for objecting to the new page he/she has created? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter. smb 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you aren't being unreasonable. Noroton is acting erratic and doesn't want to hear anyone else's opinion. He is not one for compromise. He writes 1000 word responses but I doubt he really reads anyone else's posts. You could try for an article for deletion but at this point I think it not worth the effort.What you might want to do is make a praise for sicko article and see how that shakes out. That would give a semblance of balance (not noroton's strong suit).Turtlescrubber 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not really interested in praising Sicko. Excessive praise or criticism has always bothered me. It's made even worse with the blatant distortion Norton has reintroduced on the page. User:Rodrigue has proposed merging the criticism with the main article. It's worth waiting to see what other users think. If not, I might follow your advice. Thanks. smb 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Controversies over the film Sicko and comment on merge proposal

Hi,

The title says it all. I am requesting your opinion only because you've edited the Sicko (film) article and therefore appear to have an interest in the movie. I created the "Controversies" article and think it should stay, but I'd welcome your opinion whatever it is. If you consider this message annoying, I apologize. I'm leaving this message with you and some others without violating WP:CANVASS. I won't be leaving another message asking you to comment again. Noroton 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

I reverted your edit ... it looks like you removed an infobox accidentally. Once I went back and looked at it and scrolled down, I saw that there was actually more to the edit - you were changing a characterization of the 2000 election ... please feel free to do whatever you want to do in that respect - I was just putting the infobox back and don't care one way or another about the description of the 2000 election. I would say that calling it controversial is somewhat of an understatement. ;) --BigDT 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightline quotes

Hi. I want to reinstate Moore's claims regarding free speech and free dissent in Cuba. I know the quotes are taken from a conservative opinion piece, but they are accurate and in context. My original source was the Nighline segment itself, which appears to have been added to You Tube by Moore himself (probably people who work for him, actually). I was told that You Tube is not an acceptable source, but if you check http://youtube.com/watch?v=jPmn6XcgBBs at :41 and especially 2:40, you will see that the commentary I used quotes MM verbatim and in context. Therefore, the source I used should be acceptable. -- Gerkinstock 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for interjecting. It's never a good idea to cite a short interview clip, which is necessarily abbreviated. Political views are normally expressed more fully in print. smb 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on the print and the television interview. Much of what is said in print is abbreviated as well, unless it's a direct Q&A. It appears that Moore himself (again, probably someone who works for him) added the clip to You Tube, though I can't say for sure. He doesn't elaborate on why he believes (or claims to believe) Cuba to be a free country in terms of speech, dissent, artistic expression and religion, though the mere statement that it is such a country is provocative and controversial. Hopefully, he'll be further questioned in future print, radio and/or television interviews (CSPAN or Charlie Rose, for example) about these comments and expand on them. He does seem to present a rose-colored view of Socialism with some frequency which may, at least partially, explain his comments on "Nightline." That, however, is mere conjecture. -- Gerkinstock 23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that many Socialists don't consider the current Cuban state socialist. --Orange Mike 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (lives in Milwaukee, home of beer, bowling and socialism)[reply]

Ron Paul Article

The section "Accusations of Racism" is simply a re-posting of the section "Response to newsletter remarks on race". The "Response" portion has been in the article for quite some time, whereas the "Accusations" portion has been inserted rather recently, which suggests a politically motivated entry. I welcome your thoughts on the issue.

Yeah, my mistake. The primary section in question is prone to vandalism and blanking. However, if you had left an edit summary of some sort I wouldn't have reverted your edits at all. But you were right to remove the section. Turtlescrubber 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for someone who doesn't believe the page should exist and thinks the content should be boiled down by an enormous amount, when you make edits drastically changing the page it kind of calls into question your good faith. You know what? If you want the piracy and cuba trip sections in the controversies article, in the interest of consensus, I'll accept that. EDITED TO ADD: But they should be at the BOTTOM of the article. Will you in turn think about what you can agree to in the interest of consensus? And can you think about adding information that you might disagree with, as I have? And can you tone down your language? Noroton 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every word you type to me is an insult. And I haven't seen a spirit on your part of doing anything other than ideological support for and protection of Michael Moore. Admit that I've made edits that were both in favor and against his arguments. Just have the decency to admit it. Why don't we both not make any new additions to either page other than to protect what's there for the next 48 hours. If you think what I've just said is unfair, why not look again at your words and your edits with an open mind and see if what I'm telling you is correct. Noroton 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you are absolutely wrong in what you just said. So you revert everything that other editors have done on the page and massively violate the 3rr while doing so and then you call for a 48 hour break? Seriously, we have tried to work with you and even complemented your editing at one point. However, you don't look for consensus and you walk all over everyone else. You just did it again on the page. Why? Turtlescrubber 20:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only change that violated 3RR seems to be the Kevin Drum paragraph, which I just went back and removed. And I'll put it right back in later. Why don't you adopt a more adult tone and rather than use words like "everything" and "massively", stop using hyperbole and exaggeration? It would be a really useful exercise for you to try to edit an article for neutrality, not just to pull it in the ideological directio you want to take it. Follow my example and add information from both sides, trying to be fair to both sides. Why is that so difficult for you? Why not try to live up to statements like "Seriously, we have tried to work with you" when in fact you've done nothing but argue for your ideology and call things "unfair" that are fair? Why is it that you try to restrict any criticism of Michael Moore in Wikipedia? Are you so ideologically blinded that you can't see the justice in including at least two sides to an issue? You object to the amount of space given to criticism, but I never saw you object at all to the many additions I made in the Synopsis section of the film, every one of which supported Moore. And yet at every turn you talk about how unfair it is to poor Michael Moore that he's being criticized in Wikipedia. I discussed these matters with you and smb forever and yet you say I "don't look for consensus". Your own words and actions show everybody that you're not objective or fair in any way shape or form. That's why you can't get a consensus for a merger. Noroton 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk "ideological direction", since you bring it up. Your first contribution to the Sicko page was to create a Rebuttals to the film section [1] Fourteen of your next fifteen edits concerned expanding this section. This is where I interjected. The immediate concern was balance -- it was not, as you falsely assert, that Moore should be protected from criticism. The rest of the page was generally underdeveloped. It was hoped you could be as concise as possible and exclude low quality criticism, but you made dozens more edits to this section. Only when objections were raised about balance did you start making additions to the Synopsis section (not before). I submit that you did this so you could continue to expand the criticism section at the same rate. Your recorded edits support this conclusion. Indeed, you made your intent very clear from the beginning. You specifically wanted a high profile Rebuttal section, not a general controversy section. Even now you don't want other controversial issues to interfere and stand in the way of your rebuttal page, insisting they be shoved off to the very bottom. smb 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

All of your edits. Not one. All. Just forget it. Turtlescrubber 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're interested in power, not arguments. --Removed personal attack-- I reverted the one part I thought was unchanged. Otherwise all the information is there. There are some differences, but by no means is it a revert any longer. Please, please report me. See where it gets you. Noroton 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babble and blubber much? You are wrong on all counts and you have friction with every other editor on the page. I do not. You need to read wp:3rr and wp:own because you seriously don't understand them and I wish you did. Please don't make any more comments on this page except for apologies. Thanks for playing. Turtlescrubber 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson

Can you point me to the section in the talk page where there was an agreement to remove the Budweiser section. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you keep getting reverted by me and others about the Budweiser section. Why don't we reach some sort of consensus on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko

Sir, you have now reverted my edits several times, even though I believe they were reasonable additions and and even though they cited sources (adding a dozen sources for a single phrase was over-the-top, I agree, but I wanted to make the point that that particular fact had enough evidence and reason for inclusion).

If you see an issue with any of my edits, would it be possible to let me know of it first, rather than simply reverting? I would understand your approach if I made unreasonable and uncited statements, but I do not.

Um...? I'm not sure I fully understand what you're trying to tell me. The sources others have added to the statement (when I added the statement, I only gave two sources), are all examples of where the movie is criticized on that particular point: "presenting a one-sided argument."

In fact, the majority of the reviews, in both right-wing and left-wing media, have criticized Michael Moore on this point (to a greater or lesser degree). Which is why I don't understand why you removed the statement. If the statement is true (and the first two sources alone are enough to confirm this; no need to look through all of them) but improperly sourced, wouldn't it be correct to leave it in and source it properly instead of deleting it? Tullie 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]