User talk:Turtletennisfogwheat

Archives

Bludgeoning

Hey @Turtletennisfogwheat, I saw someone accused you of WP:BLUDGEONING. While I potentially see these accusations as too bureauocratic, others don't, and even if you think you're justified, they take their accusations very seriously. Me and someone else have been reported to WP:ANI (basically admins) over this, and I almost got blocked from editing that page. I'd recommend either very much limiting the number of replies on that page, or if you absolutely insist that you're right to bring it up in a discussion somewhere (not with me though, I'm not the one upset about this). Thanks, and good luck. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other people's comments

Per WP:TPO: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. You've done this twice now ([1], [2]) because of your misunderstanding of how discussions are meant to work. I'd urge you to stop modifying other people's posts without a legitimate reason. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I've seen other editors deleting disruptive comments with no explanation and I thought they were doing the right thing. Sorry. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

move req closure

Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 8#Requested move 28 March 2025

thanks for closing the move req. please update the reason to include majority of the voters opposed the change. it is not because of wp:snow Cinaroot (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to edit the closing statement? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear about your reason for closing - it looks like your own opinion as it is worded. Did you count the supports and opposes and closed because the opposes were more than the support? Doug Weller talk 15:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I counted the opposes and recognized they overwhelmed the supporters. I summarized what most of their arguments were. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I presume you didn't count any oppose or support that didn't give a policy based reason, as an RfC is not a vote, right? Doug Weller talk 15:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't count any that didn't give any policy based reasons. Those were null. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, sorry,, it is such a sensitive topic and you are so new I felt I had to check. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing my discussion topic on George Floyd, reason completely irrelevant

On May 10th, 2025 you closed my discussion topic entitled "Possible bias in wording or omission of context for the term "homicide"" on the Talk page of the George Floyd Wikipedia article. The reason you gave is: "This has been answered over and over again per the FAQ. As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS."

This is not relevant to the topic I created. It is not a discussion about the use of the word murder, but rather about the article stating that the medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, as well as other context missing from the medical examiner's testimony. The comments I posted are solely related to the medical examiner's testimony, which has been misrepresented in the Wikipedia article.

"Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly, but does not mention that a fault was reported during the last service, the seller lies by omission. It may be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore, completely obscures the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

It's all well and good if you want to write that Chauvin was found guilty of murdering someone. However, implying that the Medical Examiner's testimony implicates Chauvin is not truthful. That is what my comment was about. Even if Chauvin did murder Floyd and the overall message of the article is correct, it does not excuse a misrepresentation of the details of the case. 19ZXA (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will stayed closed. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premature closing

Please refrain from closing active Talk page discussions that do not meet the criteria for WP:WHENCLOSE, as you did at Talk:Imane Khelif. Jpatokal (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were not prematurely closed. The RFC already decided the conclusion to keep the status quo wording. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jpatokal (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bee and Puppycat is Adult Animated ?

According to Netflix sources, the series is described as "adult animation." 152.230.99.151 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can gladly label it as such, though I suggest finding even more sources to support the claim. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mario

The close message in Talk:Mario#Requested move 1 July 2025 seemingly has a fair few WP:CLOSE issues.

the character itself has now become the subject associated with it, and not any other historical figure, current celebrity, or other fictional character sharing the name.

This is an assertion that was not actually completely in line with that discussion because a lot of the arguments made said that there wasn't in fact any single topic strongly associated with the name, rather the sum of various topics were. There's no explanation why this aspect of the discussion was seemingly ignored.

This fulfills the first criteria of it being the most common usage when referring to the name "Mario", most people are talking about the Nintendo character.

How does most people are talking about the character map to more likely than all the other topics combined from WP:PT1? There's also no explanation which parts of the move discussion made you believe this is proven.

As for long-term significance criteria, this one is less obvious than the first criteria, but this character has existed for over 40 years and have overshadowed any other subject that shares the name, besides the character's franchise, which is, again, named after the character and not vice-versa.

The factoid that the character has existed over 40 years isn't mentioned as such in the discussion. A closer has some leeway to interpret the discussion, of course, but then why not actually find and weigh the same parameters of the other topics and compose a more coherent rationale? This is why it's better to rely on the things that were specifically discussed in the debate.

The idea that the character's franchise is not overshadowed by the character, but that being the source of the name is determinative, is both not particularly clear from the discussion, and it's not clear why being the source of the name would be determinative (contrary to the WP:D guideline).

Overall, I think this has strayed too far from the documented process. The close is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate (WP:CLOSE). Please reconsider this. --Joy (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I judged the debate and decided to close based it on the arguments that were the most sound. The overwhelming evidence showed that the Nintendo character was and still is the primary topic of the name. As for the "40 years" thing, ok, maybe there was a mistake there, and that can be called out in a move review if need be. But the fact that the Nintendo character is the primary usage of the name meant that it passed the criteria of PT1. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem this response answers my concerns, so I will proceed with the review process.

After writing the above message, I scrolled up this page, and it was unsettling to see you had been blocked for a week within the last year, and have numerous warnings, related also to closing discussions. This was a long and fairly contentious discussion with 20+ people, and should have been left for someone with more experience anyway. --Joy (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with that. You may proceed with the move review. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Mario

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mario. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. --Joy (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]