User talk:Toothis

Welcome[edit]

Welcome...

Hello, Toothis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

SMP0328.

Again, welcome! SMP0328. (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Talk:Sue Simmons have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CliffC (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tim Brown (firefighter)[edit]

The article Tim Brown (firefighter) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. E Wing (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Hello, Toothis. I rolled back your additions at Talk:David Letterman. It seems clear that the point of your messages isn't really to help construct a better article but rather a back-door attempt to run David Letterman's name through the mud. The tone of your commits is grossly out of touch with culpability of the Palin-daughter joke. Letterman made an apology and retraction was made for that if I recall correctly. Holding such a grudge seems clearly politically motivated and quite unbalanced. I am unaware what your first comment is in reference to but the nature of your second comment makes it highly likely that you are over-reacting to that too. If you wish to re-add the material, please do so in a way that is constructive and thoughtfully worded. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about your issue with David Letterman. The events you are raving mad about occurred several years ago and I find it hard to believe you are are white-hot about it as you are. Time to simmer down. Some general advice about using Wikipedia: if you cannot present your arguments in a calm and rational manner, it doesn't help to get others to understand your point of view. The way you are presenting your views is not objective... at all. The problem is that you are describing a situation using language that does not capture the actual intent of the actual joke. It was not a "teen rape" joke. It was a joke aimed at making fun of a sex-crazed politician. That Palin's daughter was used is irrelevant to the punch line and any woman would have done. It was only an oversite of Letterman and his staff that it was a bad idea Palin as she is a minor. Calling this a "teen rape" joke is simply wrong. I recommend you know that what you write on Wikipedia can count as libel and that you read WP:CIVIL. You are picking a very peculiar way to start editing, one that is bound to leave you frustrated. Also, you can reply here. That way others find the conversation easier to follow in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason: Please don't tell me how to behave, feel, etc., as this is not the role of Wikihow. Your attempts at minimizing a rape joke where an adult impregnates a minor would be laughable if not for real life.

Words have consequences, right? So, what would the consequences be when an admired public figure jokes about an adult raping a minor? And you call Letterman's staff using a minor as the punch line an "oversight?" And just because Letterman apologized, it's a non-issue? But, he didn't apologize, he said it was about her elder daughter, but it was the minor they showed during the 'joke.' Yes Jason, words have consequences. Want to know why I may need "simmering down"? I counsel rape victims for a living, and many of them are minors. Want to hear their tales? You would end up "raving mad" about a public figure joking about such issues, and then making jokes in his "apology" and then having the world forget about it. Also, it is a rape joke if the context of the joke is that a child is raped by an adult. And why would he need to apologize if it were not a joke about rape? Many people feel it was a racist joke as well. As, it was an Hispanic adult male who raped the minor, so it could be called a "racist-rape joke", no? Why you would want to hide this info from the public is beyond me, but I won't tell you how to feel, or act. And your deletion of how he mocked a mentally ill person before she knelt in front of a train? To far in the past for you, or do these things happen all the time... Toothis (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia policy for users to act according to WP:CIVIL and it is editors are who enforce this. I cannot tell you how to feel or behave in life but I can point out to you how to behave on Wikipedia. I believe that the overly aggressive tone you are taking while engaging in what's supposed to be intelligent debate is counterproductive and will only end up alienating you from other editors and my guess is that you'd eventually get yourself blocked, leaving you blaming Wikipedia instead of yourself.

I admire your willingness to help rape victims but it has no bearing on the status of the Letterman article. As a mental health professional, you know that being objective is important and that you should not let your emotions bias your judgement. It is only the facts and the conclusions that can be drawn that count. I see no reason why your ideas when given here at Wikipedia should be any less objective or professional than in another setting.

If you feel, as you obviously do, that a section belongs in the Letterman article about his controversies, suggest this is an unbiased and non-libellous manner on the article's talk page. Better yet give a sound argument suggesting why such a section improves the article. Best of all would be to write a section yourself and allow others to comment on it. As it stands, you have given no allowance to Letterman's response, which I find convincing, or their plausibility. You have not indicated the difficult of comedy writing, especially in a large team, and that it requires some allowance for forgiveness of jokes made in bad taste. You have not indicated that you are even aware of the questionable nature of calling either joke a "rape joke". I just re-watched the jokes to remind myself what Letterman said and I feel that calling them "rape jokes" is a complete and utter misnomer that is an inappropriate testament to their culpability and you are exploiting the term to justify your case. Even if you reject Letterman's claim that he thought he was referring to Bristol, than the Alex Rodriguez joke was "a joke about a minor over the age of consent in her state presumable engaged in consensual sex" and the Spitzer joke was "a joke about Spitzer's inappropriate libido that included a minor over the age of consent". On the other hand, if Letterman did think the jokes were referring to Bristol, your entire argument is voided. Those are the facts unloaded of slant. The more I look into this, the more I am confirming that my original opinion, vaguely recalled, was correct and that your opinion is that of a crusade or witchhunt. For what it's worth, I do not particularly like Letterman and haven't since an extremely poor interview he did with Julia Roberts after her divorce from Lyle Lovett; so, if anything, my ear is more open to your view than many who might contribute to this article.

I suspect this view will be common among other people and editors (the public was not so outraged at Letterman over these jokes) so you have your work cut out for you to build a convincing argument. If you fail to garner consensus for you additions, you'll have to live with whatever consensus was reached. That's the nature of Wikipeda. Good luck. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter S. Thompson[edit]

I reverted your comment to Talk:Hunter S. Thompson. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:TALK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Hunter S. Thompson for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the WP:BLP Violations[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to User talk:Jason Quinn have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Those comments violate WP:BLP please be careful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Hunter S. Thompson‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Hunter S. Thompson, you may be blocked from editing. Go read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK stop trying to make a WP:POINT Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Walter Cronkite, you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk page trolling". Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]