User talk:Turtlescrubber/Archive-1

Al Gore
y did u delete the reference to the simpsons i added...it is relevant because it is one of his favorite shows

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

Thanks  Jody B talk 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

??? 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)
 * 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)
 * Hmmm. Very strange indeed. Turtlescrubber 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)