User talk:Tripbeetle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hello

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for writing the article Japanvisitor. Unfortunately, it doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, and has, as a result, been marked for deletion. However, please do not be disheartened by what may or may not happen to your first article, if indeed it is deleted - please continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which conform with the inclusion criteria. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. Tikiwont 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule

Friendly advice: If you violate the WP:3RR three revert rule, administrators may block you for up to 24 hours. You reverted to a statement that Larry Craig was a non-flusher at 02:28, 25 September 2007 [1], at 14:41, 25 September 2007 [2] , at 00:45, 26 September 2007 [3] . Give it a rest. There is no consensus that every flushing or non-flushing of a toilet is encyclopedic, or that every detail in every arrest report about a notable person needs to be included in the person's article. Edison 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly retort

Friendly advice: If you violate the WP:3RR three revert rule, administrators may block you for up to 24 hours. You reverted to a statement that Larry Craig was a non-flusher at 02:28, 25 September 2007 [1], at 14:41, 25 September 2007 [2] , at 00:45, 26 September 2007 [3] . Give it a rest. There is no consensus that every flushing or non-flushing of a toilet is encyclopedic, or that every detail in every arrest report about a notable person needs to be included in the person's article. Edison 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tripbeetle"

"There is no consensus that every flushing or non-flushing of a toilet is encyclopedic, or that every detail in every arrest report about a notable person needs to be included in the person's article."

Edison, your statement is problematic in several ways. 1. The flushing or non-flushing of a toilet is by no means encyclopedic when performed by an ordinary person such as you or me when we've actually used the toilet. However - and this is a very big however - (and I'm not really sure why it's necessary for me to have to spell this out to you) when no one less than a senator of the United States purports to have been using a public toilet for its rightful purpose but by failing to flush makes it manifestly obvious that he did NOT use it for its rightful purpose, but, rather, for the act, to which he originally pleaded guilty, i.e., of being a public nuisance, then the act of not flushing could hardly be more significant. 2. Of course not "every detail in every arrest report about a notable person needs to be included in the person's article". But as I have just made clear above, this is by no means a minor detail. It is a major detail. 3. Are you going to explain to me your real reason for tirelessly trying to eliminate this piece of information from the Larry Craig article? Because I'm going to be straight up with you and give you my reason. I am a gay man, a male homosexual, and, very unlike Larry Craig, I readily affirm my sexual orientation and defend its legitimacy. I am therefore all the more disappointed by Larry Craig's hyprocrisy. The fact that he did not flush the toilet is, in my mind, even more damning a confirmation of the legitimacy of the police officer's interpretation of Craig's "foot tapping" and "hand running" (i.e. as an invitation to engage in sex) than anything else. I will repeat: The fact that he did not flush the toilet says that he was not in there to use the toilet. That, in the light of his foot-tapping, his hand-running, his peering through the door, his using a stall right next to the police officer's when there were several others unoccupied, etc., proclaims the nature of his intentions loud and clear. I have an interest in the truth of this case, and I believe that, in the context of this case, the act of not flushing the toilet was very pertinent. Whether you appreciate my motives for trying to bring home to readers the truth of this case or not, the truth is the truth, and the truth - which I believe has nothing to do with Craig's public pronouncments after his arrest came to light - is what I am trying to underscore. Now that I have explained my reason for my dedicated efforts to include this significant piece of information, I would appreciate your enlightening me as to what must be your equally strongly felt motives for concealing this signficant piece of information. 4. Finally, for now, threatening me with 24 hours suspension for insisting on adding a detail that I believe is of major significance is rather authoritarian, don't you think? It certainly doesn't square with your professed distaste for government interference in people's lives when you are effectively trying to force your way of seeing things on me without any prior debate on the matter. Your threat is in no way ameliorated by your labelling it "friendly advice," either. To me it sounds more like "stop it, or else!".

Looking forward to hearing back from you. tripbeetle

I did not intend to make a threat and that is why I prefaced it as "friendly advice." In fact your reverts are spread out so that you were not on the verge of a technical 3RR, and I hoped you would not be tempted to place yourself in that situation. Sub-3RR reverting, if carried out long enough, is also frowned on by some admins, see example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301# in section 14 Press up. The better approach is to fight the battle in the talk page, and to find third party comments in a reliable source (such as an editorial in a major publication) where the nonflush is seen as proof of something. I have found countless non-flushed toilets, and took it as proof only that the previous user was inconsiderate. If he in fact left a pristine toilet behind, it only might prove he left before doing his excretory business. The tapping, foot contact, and sub-partition gestures have been discussed in third party sources and called incriminating. Take a look at The Smoking Gun [4] and the arrest report for several randomly chosen celebrities. How many details do you see there that are not included in their Wikipedia articles, even though some Wikipedia editor might personally feel it proves something? You see it as me forcing my views on you, but at the same time you stated above that you wish to have the Craig article express your views and values. Please try to gain a connsensus with other editors who are following the article. Others apparently just do not share your view that it is an important enough fact to include in the article.Other than the revert and the message on your talk page, I do not recall much involvement in the editing of this "nonflush" aspect of the Craig matter. Edison 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC) of 3 for a 24 hour period, and a fourth one will, unfortunately, result in a 24 hour block per WP:3RR. Please seek sources to show the reelevance of the detail and get some buy-in on the article disussion [age rather than edit-warring by simply reverting. Edison 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your latest reversion has placed you at a total of 3 within a 24 hour period, and a fourth one will, unfortunately, result in a 24 hour block per WP:3RR. Please seek sources to show the relevance of the detail and get some buy-in on the article disussion page rather than edit-warring by simply reverting. Edison 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)