User talk:Butchpenton

Please stop inserting original research into the ACLU article. In addition, please do not mark major edits as "minor" in the summary. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. The research is not original. It is documented as a result of the 2000 election with references in the text and is accurate. There are many innacuracies in the rest of the article that I do not argue but this input stands up to any scrutiny. butch@butchpenton.com

Please give the references you claim exist. You are also in violation of 3RR. I will assume good faith for now, but at the next reversion in 24 hours I will report you. Ladlergo 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go partner. I have more to post later. More trouble and I'll be reporting you.

From ACLU website: http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/21419res20051115.html Quote: 2000: Voting Rights Crisis The U.S. Supreme Court allocated for itself in Bush v. Gore an unprecedented role. Tallying votes in Florida for the presidential race had become a debacle, plagued by well-chronicled inaccuracies and inequities. The ACLU, participant in a national campaign to end felony disfranchisement called "Right to Vote", and other civil rights groups filed lawsuits in Florida and elsewhere challenging the reliance on flawed electoral systems that not only failed to count every vote equally, but often operated in a racially discriminatory manner. The ultimate fact of who won the most votes in the state had hung in balance for weeks. Yet the court chose to halt the count and validate the result as it stood.

From ACLU website: http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/election_reform.cfm ACLU Action During the 2000 Presidential Election only accomplished election reform but no individual claims of voter harassment, roadblocks or suppression exist.

From LA times: John R. Lott Jr. and James K. Glassman, "GOP Was the Real Victim in Fla. Vote, "Los Angeles Times, 12 November 2001, commentary. "Jackson and his allies claimed a "clear pattern of suppressing the votes of African-Americans." But an analysis of spoiled votes from all of Florida's precincts, conducted for minority members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission by Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was jus the opposite. In fact, Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was just the opposite. "If spoiled ballots do indicate disenfranchisement, then the new data shows that, by a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African American Republicans," Lott wrote. In fact, black Republicans were "in excess of 50 times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot declared invalid.” (There's much more but you get the gist).

Bruce, some of this could go in the critics section, but it needs to be seriously slimmed down to at most a few sentences, and you need to show that a number of people (not just one or two people in a single Op-ed) believe that the ACLU deserves serious criticism for getting involved in Bush v. Gore. Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sdedeo: Please tell me what your position is on the staff of the Wikipedia website. I didn't think so. Are you just one of these people that see a hydrant and claim it as their own? I'll give you a few minutes to explain yourself, but I think I have you figured out. I'm not going to put a silly little bio on this website but I have a website butchpenton.com if you want to know about me. I have strong opinions and if you take one look at me you will probably feel nausea and cringe in your soft pale skin. You hide behind screens and signs. I fight, I'll win.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Ladlergo 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really uninterested in who you are Butchpenton; a lot of people have worked a great deal on the article, and we are trying to maintain and expand it. I suggest you follow the advice I have given above, or you will continue to find yourself violating 3RR. Sdedeo (tips) 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing my contributions. I'll shorten it, but the spirit will remain. The ACLU entry "WILL" show the negative with the positive. Let's not call a murder assisted suicide.

Butch, your edits are extremely biased. I will consider adding several sentences regarding the ACLU's involvement in the Florida recount, but several paragraphs that deal with other people/groups are not appropriate for the article. I suggest that you visit the Florida recount page. Ladlergo 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on May 31 2006 (UTC) to American Civil Liberties Union

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William M. Connolley, I received a temporary 3RR block Regarding reversions[1] made on May 31, 2006 (UTC) to American Civil Liberties Union. I was continually blocked by user: Sdedeo and you will find that he deleted my entries as fast as I made them. He made recommendations that I shorten it and so on it went but actually he didn’t want any negative information and that was made obvious when I added a “free speech” entry under the “POSITIONS” heading. If I am to be blocked then certainly Sdedeo should also be blocked.

The following is the text that he blocks and below that is the full references.

During the 2000 Presidential election voting crisis, the Supreme Court of the United States allocated for itself in Gore v Bush an unprecedented role. Tallying votes in Florida for the presidential race had become a debacle, plagued by well-chronicled false claims of inaccuracies and inequities. The ACLU became a participant in a national campaign called "Right to Vote". They filed lawsuits in Florida, challenging the reliance on presumed flawed electoral systems that not only failed to count every vote equally, but was charged of operating in a racially discriminatory manner. The nation witnessed two recounts only to find that Governor Bush had won by an even stronger majority with each count. Still, there were threats of riots in the streets. According to Jesse Jackson in a Rainbow/Push Coalition statement dated 13 December, 2000; "When the right ingredients are present, and the fuse is lit, an explosion happens."

The ACLU attorneys were eventually successful in winning several lawsuits for voting reform but all claims of inaccuracies and inequities were never verified. Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was just the opposite. "…by a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African American Republicans," Lott wrote. In fact, black Republicans were "in excess of 50 times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot declared invalid.” The ACLU was a participant in a national campaign to generate the appearance of a conspiracy and filed numerous lawsuits that kept racial tensions high; but in the end, failed to uncover a single "victim" to actually step forward with an actual civil rights violation. [2]

HISTORY From ACLU website: http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/21419res20051115.html Quote: 2000: Voting Rights Crisis The U.S. Supreme Court allocated for itself in Bush v. Gore an unprecedented role. Tallying votes in Florida for the presidential race had become a debacle, plagued by well-chronicled inaccuracies and inequities. The ACLU, participant in a national campaign to end felony disfranchisement called "Right to Vote", and other civil rights groups filed lawsuits in Florida and elsewhere challenging the reliance on flawed electoral systems that not only failed to count every vote equally, but often operated in a racially discriminatory manner. The ultimate fact of who won the most votes in the state had hung in balance for weeks. Yet the court chose to halt the count and validate the result as it stood.

From ACLU website: http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/election_reform.cfm ACLU Action During the 2000 Presidential Election only accomplished election reform but no individual claims of voter harassment, roadblocks or suppression exist.

From LA times: John R. Lott Jr. and James K. Glassman, "GOP Was the Real Victim in Fla. Vote, "Los Angeles Times, 12 November 2001, commentary. "Jackson and his allies claimed a "clear pattern of suppressing the votes of African-Americans." But an analysis of spoiled votes from all of Florida's precincts, conducted for minority members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission by Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was jus the opposite. In fact, Yale University scholar John R. Lott Jr., found that the reality was just the opposite. "If spoiled ballots do indicate disenfranchisement, then the new data shows that, by a dramatic margin, the group most victimized in the Florida voting was African American Republicans," Lott wrote. In fact, black Republicans were "in excess of 50 times more likely than the average African American to have had a ballot declared invalid.”

POSITIONS free speech. ACLU Agrees to Represent NAMBLA in Freedom of Speech Case. Reinstein, John. ACLU of Massachusetts Press Release, 9 June 2003.

I strongly recomment you read WP:3RR, and also obey it in future. I didn't block you based on the correctness or otherwise of your edits, but on your editing pattern William M. Connolley 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to anything that might give me a clue to what you mean by editing pattern. Thank you. I understand the WP:3RR and that should have been clear since that was all I whined about in my first paragraph. Did user: Sdedeo get the same violation block?

Editing pattern just means, have you made more than 3R in 24h. Why should S get blocked, when S didn't break 3RR? William M. Connolley 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3Rs were three entries in response to three malicious deletions -- I didn't revise my entry -- I just replaced what was deleted; so will you lift the block. If S didn't delete my entries then someone else did; at least three times. In your comment (two above,) you say that you didn't block based on correctness, so can I assume that my contribution will be unmolested. (I have provided full references after all).

On the off chance you're prepared to be civil to me, let me explain. You put in something that at least three people thought was bad. Instead of working with others by going to the talk page, you kept putting it back in -- six times, and each time it was removed by someone. This is not how the wiki works. When you encounter resistance from other contributors, you need to discuss it, as I tried to do with you earlier on your talk page. If you are prepared to be civil to me, I would be happy to help you out. By the way, you should "sign" your comments/posts by typing ~~~~ Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to take the leap. I'll be civil and hold out hope that you will discuss my contribution with the elders and agree that my offering is well referenced and valid -- certainly not palitable for some but it's a big, clumsy organization and good comes with good but we are forever honest about ourselves. I expect and deserve the right to provide honest input to each headings.

This was meant to be civil (perhaps a little dead-pan). ~~~~ Yours, Butchpenton

There are no elders; there's just a lot of people who watch the page.

Re: your NAMBLA insert; we include controversial cases like KKK, NAMBLA, etc., under the "controversial" header, as you can see. NAMBLA is already there. In general, articles reserve "controversial" stuff for a separate section.

Re: the Bush v. Gore case. Can you boil down all this material to three (or fewer) sentences? That will probably be fine with people.

If not, the best place for the material may be at the Florida recount page, where there is more space to expand on this material.

(PS: don't put the "nowiki" tags around the ~s -- just type them on their own!)

Sdedeo (tips) 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FROM EARLIER Butch, your edits are extremely biased. I will consider adding several sentences regarding the ACLU's involvement in the Florida recount, but several paragraphs that deal with other people/groups are not appropriate for the article. I suggest that you visit the Florida recount page. Ladlergo 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ladlergo, I visited the Florida recount page and it was entirely biased and unfounded while mine was well-researched and documented. Which of us is biased? I hate to get into a heated discussion when it is so one-sided. Below is what you led me to. The entire page was dedicated to things that "might" have helped Gore win the election "if" they had done "this or that". "Butch, your edits are extremely biased?" -- Indeed.

Wikipedia Florida recount page: All of the various county by county recounts that had been requested by Gore or Bush. Neither Candidate had formally requested a total statewide recount.

The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes is by using counting methods that were never requested, and which included "overvotes" — spoiled ballots in which more than one candidate is selected for one office. These overvoted ballots are viewed as irretrievably spoiled by all responsible election officials, but the recount attempt to discern "voter intent" by examining them anyway. These results would also only be valid if the media representatives viewed the ballots in the same manner as the voting officials would have.

Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000 (outcome of one particular study; not representative of all studies. In most studies, most scenarios favored Bush.) Review Method Winner Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken) • Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60

NEW SUBJECT

- NAMBLA is a victory according to ACLU correspondence. Who are we to pigeon-hole their accomplishments. Are we to belittle the freedom of speech won for the Minutemen only to call the Black Panther speeches controversial?

Yours, Butchpenton

Don't get wise! The NAMBLA case, as with the KKK, was controversial, period -- which is why it's in that section. Sdedeo (tips) 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys, always the kidders.

Seriously, I only wanted to test the waters with you clowns. I read an article earlier today by The New York Times that reported that the ACLU, that watchdog of free speech, is weighing a policy that would prevent members of its own board from criticizing the group publicly.

Its a fun read if you follow the treads of my trials and tribulations as I tried to post actual truthful information about the ACLU that wasn't palatable for you Nazi Wikipedia storm troopers. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. You are too self-centered and egotistical to even imagine that you (you) are precisely the intolerant type of people the ACLU formed to protect Americans against. User:Butchpenton, An American Patriot

Please, no personal attacks.

I will be deconstructing your paragraphs later today and will show why they are largely inappropriate.

And we're well aware of that policy. It was added before you started posting. Ladlergo 11:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The O'Reilly Factor

Just a friendly reminder, please put comments at the bottom of the talk pages of articles and not at the top of earlier discussions. Yes, I knew it was there for a while but replying was not one of my major priorities at the time. Also, you would be better served by not making assumptions about editors' motivations. We should assume good faith here. If you have any issues with an article, point them out and they can be discussed in a civil manner. Thanks. MrMurph101 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]