Editing User talk:Turkeybutt JC

Welcome Turkeybutt and thank you for the articles! [[User:Auggie|Auggie]] ([[User talk:Auggie|talk]]) 18:14, 25 October 2016 (CDT)
:You're welcome, but I'd like to know how to move ''United States presidental election'' to ''United States presidential election''. --[[User:Turkeybutt JC|Turkeybutt JC]] ([[User talk:Turkeybutt JC|talk]]) 16:56, 26 October 2016 (CDT)

Why did you delete Victus's contribution to my talk page? -- [[User:Turkeybutt JC|Turkeybutt JC]] ([[User talk:Turkeybutt JC|talk]]) 10:43, 11 February 2017 (CST)
:I hope you don't mind I saw this first, so I answered. There are very few reasons why an admin might delete a revision. [[Wikipedia:Libel|Libel]] is one of those, and that's what it was in this case. It's not something you want to see. It's not my story to tell, but this guy is trying to drag people into his petty squabble with [[User:Auggie|Auggie]]. Baseless accusations and so forth. [http://i.imgur.com/sCuwt6H.png You're not the only one he bothered]. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] ([[User talk:Alexander|talk]]) 12:50, 11 February 2017 (CST)

::We've had some vandal problems lately.  He is making accusations of criminal activity, which do constitute libel. [[User:Auggie|Auggie]] ([[User talk:Auggie|talk]]) 14:43, 11 February 2017 (CST)

:::Are you okay with you paraphrasing what he said here? If he was saying bad/dirty/naughty words like the F, S, R or N word/s then you may bowdlerize that. -- [[User:Turkeybutt JC|Turkeybutt JC]] ([[User talk:Turkeybutt JC|talk]]) 10:31, 12 February 2017 (CST)
::::But wait..there's more. A former admin reverted a lot of this guy's vandalisms, and he got dragged into it too. Guilty by association? Nah man. I don't think so.

::::I don't believe in censoring people except in some cases. This is one of them. You have to understand that this involves ''unsubstantiated criminal allegations'' (libel). I think it's best not to repeat what was said. I don't want to give this guy another voice. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] ([[User talk:Alexander|talk]]) 12:18, 12 February 2017 (CST)

:::::I'm not repeating it.  It was suppressed for a reason.  Believe me it had nothing to do with you.  He was spamming large numbers of user pages, not just yours. [[User:Auggie|Auggie]] ([[User talk:Auggie|talk]]) 15:26, 12 February 2017 (CST)

::::::So his user talk page vandalist messages are so bad that even sugarcoated stories of his false accusations ''(e.g. he told someone that they did bad things)'' would still not be okay for objectively describing to many Encyc people? I'm just curious and naive. Sorry about the nerves I got on to. -- [[User:Turkeybutt JC|Turkeybutt JC]] ([[User talk:Turkeybutt JC|talk]]) 06:47, 13 February 2017 (CST)
:::::::No, that's not it at all. He went to other people and accused ''Auggie'' of doing things that were against the law (without proof, which is what "[[Wiktionary:unsubstantiated|unsubstantiated]]" means). Basically throwing around wild accusations, damaging to a person's reputation (which is what "[[Wiktionary:libel|libel]]" means) and trying to turn Encyc against Auggie. As in "Hey did you know that Auggie blah blah blah blah". You really don't need to know what was said & we're not going to tell you. (Basically, yes, it's so bad, it shouldn't be repeated. Nothing constituting libel should ever be repeated. Not to mention, even repeating it is a criminal offense.) It really does not matter. What would be the point to "objectively discuss it"? That would only create more problems. "Someone said something damaging and the problem was taken care of." That's it, that's all. End of story. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] ([[User talk:Alexander|talk]]) 08:12, 13 February 2017 (CST)

::::::::We already gave the sugarcoated version.  He made baseless accusations of criminal activity.  That kind of behavior cannot be allowed, because then every time there was a dispute, the aggressor could "win" by tossing out completely false accusations until the victim leaves out of concern for their own reputation.  It is highly disruptive behavior and poison to a community. [[User:Auggie|Auggie]] ([[User talk:Auggie|talk]]) 08:50, 13 February 2017 (CST)
::::::::Why are you afraid of accusations of criminal activity which didn't take place? Besides, there aren't winners or losers on a wiki, there are just pages which get edited by anyone who pushes buttons. [[User:Public|Public]] ([[User talk:Public|talk]]) 14:17, 18 February 2017 (CST)
:::::::::"What are you so afraid of?", says the one hiding behind an anonymous account. The fear thing goes both ways. Obviously, you must have something to hide, if you won't sign your name. [http://jaydejaresco.blogspot.ca/2006/10/why-libel-is-criminal.html Libel is a felony.] It doesn't matter if the thing actually took place or not. Words can seriously damage a person's reputation. [http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_news/news_states_criminal_libel_web_internet.htm 17 of 50 US states have laws against any sort of online libel/defamation]. I think those reasons are sufficient. A person can't go around saying whatever they wish about anyone they like without consequences. The First Amendment (I'm going to assume you're American?) [http://people.howstuffworks.com/10-rights-first-amendment-does-not-grant.htm does not guarantee complete freedom of speech]. I think we should give this a rest. This has gone on for long enough. There's nothing to be gained by constantly rehashing this and ultimately, this is Auggie's wiki. He can set whatever rules he wants. You're free to disagree with them, of course, but nobody's forcing you to be here.  [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] ([[User talk:Alexander|talk]]) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (CST)
::::::::::Alexander has a point. Sailors might use the "freedom of speech and expression" aspect of the First Amendment to justify their use of bad words. But we who are offended by swearing can tell them the First Amendment won't guarantee that. '''The First Amendment doesn't prohibit entities across the US (e.g. businesses, state governments, universities, municipalities, online message boards, etc.) from regulating what we say.''' It just means the government can't legally stop Americans from saying anything, even if it conflicts with the national interest. Students who held a sign saying ''bong hits for jesus'' were told by school staff not to use that sign at school, so the students tried to justify their use of the sign at court by citing the First Amendment, nevertheless the judge didn't agree and the students lost the case. - [[User:Turkeybutt JC|Turkeybutt JC]] ([[User talk:Turkeybutt JC|talk]]) 06:16, 21 February 2017 (CST)