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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETION REQUESTED BY PROFESSOR VON PIE, my work is done here.
Professor Von Pie
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)[reply]
Actually, i removed it, RVP. We don't tolerate folk being rude and attacking others. the post was removed becvause it was both. End of story. No ownership issues, no pride, no need to bitch-slap the guy around. I tried to counsel the fellow three different times on his talk page, and he didn't bother to even attempt fixing his behavior. He does it again, and he'll probably be removed, as I've let a few admins know about the problem. Aside from that, i wasn't sure about what you were trying to address in your post to my Talk Page. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your controversial edits have once again been reverted, for its potentially libelous claims that were not supported by the references provided. unfortunately 'common knowlege' information is not permitted. please take a moment to review, {{Uw-biog2}}, wp:blp, and particularly wp:3RR on the wp 3 revert rule policy. cheers. --emerson7 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are sooo way off the mark dude! wiki has basically two tenets. 1) is it true? 2) and can you back it up with reliable sources. as long as these two basic criteria are met, everything is fair game. further i am personally offended by your implication of racism in your rant. --emerson7 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit because it is misleading. If you read the source in detail, it is clear that Channing is referring to her father's skin tone (black, brown, light, dark, etc.), not his race or ethnicity. Her father was half African-American, and your edit suggests that he was not. If you restore the information, please make that clear. Ward3001 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you made a misleading edit. Here is a direct quote from the source: "No, he was not black. I wish I had his picture. He was -- he was a -- his skin was the color of mine. I don't know maybe" (emphasis added). Ambiguity about skin tone -- yes. Ambiguity about race -- NO. If a famous black actress was making this statement, you would not be adding such an edit to that person's article. And read the other sources on this topic. It is unequivocal that her father was half African-American. I will assume good faith that you simply didn't understand the source rather than that you have an ulterior motive in your edits. But if you add another edit that implies ambiguity about race rather than skin tone, I will assume the worst. Ward3001 (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not assuming good faith and personal attacks[edit]
"do-gooders who keep reverting the truth":
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Carol Channing. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Carol Channing. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Did you learn anything from this exchange? I doubt it":
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Carol Channing, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent contributions to the Debbie Reynolds article. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we cannot accept sources which appear to be the original work of the editor. If the material you added can be attributed to a reliable source, you may add it back if you cite it. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in the verifiability of the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that supports your edit? If so please add it, otherwise it is unsupported commentary that is not allowed in wikipedia articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see from looking over your talk page that this won't be the first time someone has noted what can only be described as personal attacks. The bad faith comments you left here are totally unacceptable under Wikipedia policy regarding behavior. You've been reminded more than once on this page to comment upon the content, not upon the contributor, and if you cannot discuss something without resorting to the use of language such as "your reply is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Totally robotic", "people who have no particular business writing on a topic stick their nose into things, and use a rule to back themselves up", "Because it is the truth, and such periodicals are generally not written by robotic morons who fancy themselves purveyors of truth", and edit summaries such as " Not everyone was born to write or is equipped to write, but anyone can vandalize", then I suggest you direct your attention to a site that does not have policies and guidelines governing user conduct, sourcing, neutrality, and standards of writing. Your comment is unacceptable and I would suggest you read Wikipedia policies concerning civility, personal attacks, and how to post on talk pages. The next time I come across an unprovoked attack such as this by you, I will gladly take you to the etiquette noticeboard, the administrator's noticeboard for incidents or both. Senior citizen or not, you have an obligation to conduct yourself appropriately. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning regarding personal attacks and allegations. Removing unsourced POV content from an article is not vandalism or redacting the "truth", and removing personal attacks from pages is not censorship. If you cannot refrain from making controversial accusations and personal attacks, you will be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Carol Channing. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. 
