User talk:Professor Von Pie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Tommy Manville
Hi Prof. Thanks for adding that quote to the Tommy Manville article! Herostratus 07:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proving a point
Please do not make edits simply to prove a point. That would violate WP:POINT. -Willmcw 20:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tony Randall edit
Hi,
I reverted this edit; most importantly, Randall was born more than 2 years before Klugman, so the fact that he died last year is not very pertinent or "ironic". In any case, since both man have reached a high age, the comment is inappropriate in a biography.--Eloquence* 21:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Willmcw
Not sure how much you know about administrators, Professor, but our main duty is enforcement as you put it. That means that #1 we often get involved in things that we don't have any personal stake in. Going back a couple of weeks, I see no edits from Willmcw on this article. And #2 if admins feel like somebody is skirting policies, they will often watch them for awhile. Not saying that that's the case here, but it's common. It doesn't mean that we are "stalking" people. I think that has some sinister meaning that I don't think exists. It's just part of our job as admins. I guess I"m just saying that I wouldn't take it personally. As far as I know, he has no ill will towards you. And he's a very experienced user. Admins become admins after 5-6-7 months on here and then a vote of fellow users (and about 1/3rd of nominations fail). Will is actually one of our better judges of neutrality. I just feel like you are making some quick judgements on him without really knowing alot about his work here. Just relax and remember that Will is an admin and he's going to give you every benefit of the doubt and help you if he can. He's not out to get you. Very few people on here are. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] re: your e-mail
Feel quite free to. :)
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 06:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm replying here to your e-mail, as I feel interactions about Wikipedia should take place on Wikipedia talk, for transparency.
- I reverted your edit because I didn't feel it was phrased neutrally. This is obviously a subjective matter, and I invite you to resubmit it, preferably consistent with WP:NPOV.
- There is no "list of troublemakers", as implied in your e-mail, that lead me to target you. You were editing without logging in, and I periodically monitor recent edits by non-registered users (among others), and take appropriate action when appropriate action seems appropriate, appropriately. You were not personally singled out.
- Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I apologize for any inconvenience, and hope to see you on Wikipedia in the future. Don't hesitate to message me on my talk page if you have any questions.
- Regards, Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 02:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Hope
Please don't insert your personal opinion in Wikipedia articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be sure to read WP:3RR. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also read WP:POINT. Based on your comments on the Talk page, it's obvious you have no interest in trying to make valid edits. If you persist, you will be blocked for disruption. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR block
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against 3RR. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Mr Reagan's ketchup
Anyone who's looked into this knows Reagan had nothing to do with it. This was the dodgy notion of some overzealous people on his staff who had little or no understanding of politics or journalists. The only people who are interested in that gaff are those who want to smear him, forget the facts. Saying he had disdain for the poor is a two-dimensional take on a three-dimensional outlook and is not supported by his public statements nor his private correspondence. Reagan peacefully ended the cold war and signalled a tidal shift in American politics. Too bad most of the dolts who claimed his political legacy were neither as smart, keen on human nature nor politically skilled as he, never mind the character issues. I am likely biased, however. I was brought up by people who thought he was wonderful. He was certainly a very nice person.
Everyone knows Clinton is (or at least was) trailer trash sleaze. He was, by the bye, also a very smart, brilliant politician and wound up being a moderately inclined, successful president.
I don't think anyone's "keeping" Bob Hope's gate on WP. If an event relates to his life in a meaningful way and is supportable by secondary sources, it can be referred to in the article. Hope's rather boring, though I hear he made a tonne in California real estate back in the day.
Wikipedia, being half run by enthusiastic but often clueless male teens (with some docking wankers thrown in), is a bit thick and unscholarly at times but you can take my word for it, the problems you've had here are overwhelmingly due to the simple fact that so many of your contributions have not been encyclopedic in tone or content. WP is not a forum for consigning dead law abiding celebrities to historical damnation. You may be confusing WIkipedia with a blog. Many people do. This is not entirely accidental but that's another story altogether. Wyss 20:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Defending famous people
So far as Patti goes, the kids hardly count since the parent-child thing is its own, separate and weird world of love and denial and yeah, famous people are wontedly hated and admired for all the wrong reasons. I think an encyclopedia is meant to curtail that a bit and tossing in both smears and unsupportable, gushingly complimentary adjectives, as you have done here and there, is in my humble opinion unhelpful to the process of creating a reliable and trustworthy encyclopedia. Wyss 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
SPEEDY DELETION REQUESTED BY PROFESSOR VON PIE, my work is done here. Professor Von Pie
[edit] Katie Holmes
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Von Mock
Hey Von Pie! Love your work :-) (well, I've only read the Ricky Martin page but your comments had me rolling in the aisles :-). In spite of that, I think you had some valid points and I've added to the talk page myself. When I have a few hours to get to grips with all the griping and so forth I might explain a bit further for those who don't seem to understand the solid logic behind your not so subtle mocking :-). Sak Mo Dee 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
