User talk:Pistolpierre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been temporarily blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Usually this is not done without a warning, but your reverts were far too numerous and false to let it continue. --Golbez 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is your last chance. 1) Please stop pasting large passages from a book into articles; if you want to reference it, then reference it with a summary, not with a straight quote. 2) Stop posting your POV into articles like Adolf Hitler; we don't care if you think what he did was bad. 3) Did I mention no more quotes from that book? Thank you. --Golbez 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Rudy Giuliani 2 Hitler 3 Unblock 4 5 May 2007 5 Napoleon I 6 Bergson 7 Napoleon talk page 8 Please give it a rest 9 Blocked 10 Warning 11 Jimmy Page 12 Good troll

[edit] Rudy Giuliani

I removed the link because only the most relevant and informative external links are usually left in articles. Your link was very specific, and was to a poll, not to very much information about Giuliani. Try adding content instead of external links. Mak (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy on external links. Removing them is actually not arbitrary: we do this rigorously in order to keep articles from accumulating hundreds of links that add no actual encyclopedic content. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's significant, or has been covered in the news (I hadn't noticed, but I don't always follow), by all means, yes. You might want to mention it on the article's talk page. You also might want to include a reference to a media source to back you up. Antandrus (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Read this to understand that Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality and does not plagarise copyrighted works. Thank you. Harro5 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's still a copyvio. And don't attack Golbez for upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Harro5 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On the topic of deciding what is more evil of Hitler's policies (trust that neither Golbez nor I is a closet Nazi), it is not for any encyclopedia to make that judgement. In fact, there is no better way to demonstrate this than to direct you to this quote. Please do not re-insert content which goes against the principle that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This cannot be made any more clear to you. Thank you. Harro5 07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Since you say you now understand, I'm unblocking you; please do not see this as an endorsement of your proposed edits. --Golbez 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't care; but don't say "i got unblocked so I could make this edit". That's not the case at all, so don't even think about using my unblock as an endorsement for your edit. And don't come to me if and when it gets reverted. --Golbez 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 May 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Noam Chomsky, you will be blocked from editing. -- Atlant 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon I

Technically Napoleon was French. The first two sentences actually make that clear. Corsica became part of France in 1768 Napoleon was born in 1769, making him French by birth. What you have added to the article makes no sence. --Bryson 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• That was half of my reasoning in removing your addition. To give you an idea of the other half, consider this:

"George Washington had not a single drop of American blood, was born on British soil, and fought for the British army, yet is paradoxically and universally—even amongst modern Americans—considered an American." Deltabeignet 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I thought nothing of the kind. I think you missed my point, which was: Blood has nothing to do with nationality. Citizenship does. Napoleon was French by birth (on French soil) and by patriotism ("France, the army, Josephine..."), either of which would have made him 100% French—just as George Washington's actions made him 100% American. Deltabeignet 23:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've thought it over; here's a better example.

"Queen Victoria was of entirely German heritage, yet is paradoxically and universally—even amongst modern Britons—considered to be British." Deltabeignet 23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to make this as clear as I can. The word "French" is ambiguous, and could refer to language, nationality, or ethnicity. It is fine to say that Napoleon was not ethnically French—in fact, by way of giving his background, the article already makes that clear. It is not fine to say, without qualifiers, that there is a 60-million-man misconception that Napoleon was "French". Ethnicity no, nationality yes. Your point—that Napoleon was not ethnically French—is already made in much more neutral language. Deltabeignet 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As a side note, be careful with wholesale reversion. You also undid an edit of mine that I had explained on the talk page. Deltabeignet 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• "French" does not automatically mean ethnicity; on the contrary, it usually means nationality. ("Hebrew" is different; the word for nationality of Israel is "Israeli.") As I explicitly told you (when I said "It is fine to say that Napoleon was not ethnically French"), there is nothing inflammatory about saying he was of Corsican heritage. The inflammatory part is in saying, in effect, "All French people believe this, and it's wrong." No source, except maybe a Gallup poll, can reliably establish how widespread a belief is. I'm afraid that you seem to have a history of making factual tenable but inflammatory edits (to Adolf Hitler, for instance.) Also, when you said "STOP UNDOING MY EDITS," I had already stopped reverting. Deltabeignet 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• I've trimmed your last addition to simply "Napoleon was ethnically Corsican of ancient Italian heritage." (The "not a single drop" bit still seemed a little dramatic.) I find this to be an acceptable compromise. Truce? Deltabeignet 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bergson

Hi, thanks for your reply. I was interested in Bergson because he was a minor influence on people like G. B. Shaw, who I am interested in. I thought the article at least ought to outline his philosophy - don't do it just for me though. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon talk page

If you don't mind some friendly personal advice, I think it's time to let the discussion drop, or at least cool off for a couple of days. Both you and FFMG are spending more time attacking each other than discussing the subject; and I'm going to leave a note on his talk page saying the same thing. --Russ (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please give it a rest

Please give the issues on Talk:George W. Bush a rest. With all due respect, the reason that everyone on that page disagrees with you is because Wikipedia policy clearly disagrees with you. Since you say you did, I believe that you have already read the relevant pages that are linked, and thus you must know that the objections to what you are saying are in line with Wikipedia policy. I see no reason to continue this push.

Also, whether or not you feel others are being civil to you, you do not have a right to be uncivil to them. Civility is a requirement, and two wrongs do not make a right on Wikipedia. So please attempt to be civil in the future. - Revolving Bugbear 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I attempted to maintain civility and the highest degree of good faith, even as other (many well-respected and longstanding) editors gave up and told you to just shut up. I eventually realized it was pointless and gave up.

One should not confuse the policy of "assume good faith" to mean that one can indefinitely exercise bad faith. I assumed good faith far longer than most editors would, but eventually I was faced with overwhelming evidence that your actions were in bad faith. That is not a violation of the WP:AGF policy, and I hope you will reflect on this and understand it once your block expires. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours, although I probably should have made it indefinite. Your trolling is not going to be tolerated, and your last comment on Talk:George W. Bush was far from acceptable. Please take this time to read up on what we do here, or your next block will be much longer. We are not a place for you to further your opinion, research, or other nonsense. We are an encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could accuse me of trolling and general disruption. Because I believe the George W. Bush article has a liberal bias? Is that why you said I was soapboxing? What is this other nonsense you are talking about? You say that the article is a strictly biographical. Then why does Google describe it otherwise? Pistolpierre (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We have no control of how Google describes anything. If you have a problem with their description, I'd suggest contacting them. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Google's description is correct don't you think? One cannot describe the article as strictly biographical. I guess I can see why you think I am "soapboxing" because I mentioned a liberal bias, but I cannot understand why you accuse me of trolling or general disruption. I see that there is mention of Posada Carriles in the "War on Terror" section. I didn't put it there. I apologize if I somehow missed this. Do you know when this was added? If this was there prior to my discussion, I regret the discussion I started if people think I was trolling. I am not trying to be disruptive and definitely not a troll. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you care to know why I am so passionate about the Bush connection to Posada Carriles it is because I am related to that bastard Carrera who was his accomplice. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it. The source did not establish that Bush is "aware" or that he has any opinion or has ever made any comments on it, and thus it is original research. - Revolving Bugbear 00:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Who added it? When was it added? Was it there for a long time? Pistolpierre (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] It was apparently there for a couple weeks. It's still OR, though. - Revolving Bugbear 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor and delete my last comment about George H.W. Bush being hit with the body parts of a Cuban baby. As much as I hate the Bush family for being racist terrorists, I understand that the Cubans are equally racist and terrorist. I don't want Americans to realize that the Bushs are liberal racist terrorists, even if I am related to Carrera who was in the employ of 41. I hate the Bushs but I am not Noam Chomsky and do not believe in anarchy. The American psyche is better off perceiving 41, 43, Jeb, Carrera, Posada, and Bosch as patriots. Pistolpierre (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points / suggestions:

Once your block lapses, which it will soon if you remain calm and civil, you will have the ability to redact it yourself. However, it will remain in the page history forever. That conversation will be archived eventually, but removing comments from talk pages is generally discouraged.

The best thing for you to do would probably be to, once you can edit again, post a new comment there expressing regret for what you said. That would go a long way to patching things up.

I would also suggest that you reign in your rhetoric. I understand that you have strong feelings about Bush. However, those feelings do not belong on Wikipedia. Articles are for content, and talk pages are for discussing that content. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you need to control your personal feelings if you want to edit Wikipedia effectively.

If you have any questions, or if you would like help or guidance, I would be happy to provide it. But please take my words -- and the words of others, even though some comments were a little rough around the edges -- to heart.

Peace. - Revolving Bugbear 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Whether you mean well or not, I'm frankly not sure, but you need to heed the warnings of others. First, talk pages are to be used only for the discussion of changes to article, not for discussion of the article subjects. Second, if a registered user removes content from his or her talk page, that is his/her right; do not re-add that content. Your edits to User talk:Med are unacceptable, and are bordering heavily on harassment. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and those who attempt to make it one are blocked from editing. Please reconsider your behavior. - auburnpilot talk 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't undo anything today. Yesterday he was having fun with it..."You will get tired before me, etc." You need to relax. I am not a troll. We had a discussion about Sarkozy's grandfather. I used the example of Ben Stiller's Irish mom and Ruth from the Torah to prove that a person cannot lose their ethnicity by converting to Judaism. I am getting tired of being called a troll. You say I am making Wikipedia a battleground? That is ridiculous. Read the discussion. He told me to shut up because he didn't like the discussion. Ever hear of freedom of speech? I was trying to improve the content of the article. I also said that the discussion should be archived since people are so sensitive regarding Jewish ethnicity. The last thing I want to do is make Jewish people more paranoid. Did you even read the discussion? I was called an anti-Semite anti-Communist for asking how it is that Sarkozy's Sephardic Jewish ancestry supposedly vanished because his grandfather converted to Roman Catholicism. Pistolpierre (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are tired of being called a troll, you may want to review your contributions and decide whether or not they are appropriate. Usually if somebody is being called a troll, there is a reason. I did read through the entire discussion, and it very much reminded me of your participation on Talk:George W. Bush. The errors of your ways were pointed out to you, and instead of addressing them, you continued unabated. As to freedom of speech, Wikipedia isn't required to recognize any such right; see Wikipedia:Free speech. As for you being called an anti-Semite and anti-Communist, I can find no such comment. Diffs please. - auburnpilot talk 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt there is a reason people are falsely called trolls. There is nothing in the discussion that points out "the error of my ways." What are you talking about? In fact, the reason I continued in my discussion was because the person you say I was harassing removed the entire discussion twice! For no good reason. There is nothing in my responses that is even close to trolling or soapboxing. He compared me to the Vichy French government. There has only been one government, Hitler's Germany, that was more anti-Semite anti-Communist. The people who call me a troll are always dead wrong. When I show them what you call the "error of their ways" they attack me. It never fails. Now you are doing the same thing. You weren't even involved in the discussion. Again, I didn't undo anything today. The person was having fun with the undo edits yesterday. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Harassment? Give me a break. I'm getting tired of these discussions. This person removes the entire discussion twice and tells me to shut up and you say I am a troll and harassing him. LOLPistolpierre (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Diffs please. I cannot find anybody comparing you to the Vichy French government, only Rama stating that the concept of a person's ethnicity vanishing "brings back memories of the Vichy regime".[2] - auburnpilot talk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

???Did I not tell you I was compared to Vichy? Are you trying to say that I was not compared to the Vichy French? This discussion is getting absurd.Pistolpierre (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a concept? If you're a concept, than yes, you were compared to the Vichy government. If, however, you are not a concept, but a person as I suspect, than no, you were not compared to the Vichy government. The only conceivable way to make Rama's statement a comparison of you, is if you in fact agree with the concept he is referring to. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

??? Seriously why are you so confused? What does this statement mean to you? "Sarkozy's Jewish ethnicity did not vanish. It never existed. The concept, incidentally, is repugnant, and instantly brings back memories of the Vichy regime." Is it repugnant to say that Napoleon was ethnically Italian? Is it repugnant to say that Ruth was a Moab who converted to Judaism? Is it repugnant to say that virtually every book in the Pentateuch admonishes Hebrews who take foreign wives? Is it repugnant to say that Ben Stiller's Mom was Irish and that therefore Ben Stiller is of Irish descent? Is it repugnant to compare somebody to Pierre Laval because they read on Wikipedia that Sarkozy's grandfather was a Sephardic Jew who converted to Roman Catholicism? Can you seriously not make the association between the Vichy regime and any discussion on Jewish ethnicity? Are you going to put the French Third Republic above the Hebrew Bible regarding ethnicity? What about the Orthodox Jews, who do not consider a child born out of wedlock with a Gentile woman to be Jewish? How does that not establish ethnicity? I am not going to argue with you. This is a tremendous waste of time.Pistolpierre (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was only one accurate statement in that nonsensical, completely irrelevant rant: "This is a tremendous waste of time." You can take my advice, and the advice of others, or I can assure you, your stay here will be brief. There are over 1400 admins, and I assure you, your behavior will be noticed by one of them. - auburnpilot talk 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you a troll? Now you are comparing me to Pierre Laval as well? How are you not a troll? Nothing I have said is racist, unless you consider the Torah to be racist, because I everything I have said comes from the Pentateuch and the Book of Ruth.Pistolpierre (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have Diffs to show I compared you to Pierre Laval, or called the Torah racist? No. - auburnpilot talk 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. You said my "rant" was nonsensical and completely irrevelant when it was a reaction to the association of any discussion about Jewish ethnicity with Vichy France. If you cannot see that I was called an anti-Communist anti-Semite through comparison with Vichy France and its President Pierre Laval, I will stop responding to any further mention of that monster. If you consider my "rant" to be racist, then you consider the Torah to be racist because the descriptions of ethnicity in the Pentateuch and Book of Ruth are not mine, they are the Hebrew faith.Pistolpierre (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Page

I have temporarily protected the Jimmy Page article from editing to prevent the parties involved exceeding three-revert rule, which I note, has been the reason for blocks being imposed on this account. Please read over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and consider whether your addition was genuinely Neutral. It seems to me to read as 'as well as all this detail of occult involvement, he dressed up as a Nazi onstage once, Nazis were occultists', that is giving one particular aspect, based on a highly 'point of view' connection, over-importance.--Alf ^melmac 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was mentioning the fact that he and the Nazis had a shared interest in the occult and that he dressed up like a Nazi in Chicago. That's it. As far as the pedophilia goes, it is illegal to have sex with a fourteen year old girl everywhere in the United States. I read a bio of Lori Maddox that says David Bowie took her virginity at age 13. Bowie and Page are pedophiles at worst and creeps at best according to the laws of the United States. Perhaps things are different in England?Pistolpierre (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message, did I ever say I supported Nazism? Did I say I ever supported pedophilia? Don't think I ever did. If your concerned by such behaviour perhaps you should mention this on David Bowie's page, considering she lost her virginity to Bowie. (I'm willing to bet you won't). MegX (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"You seem to be saying that it is o.k. for people to dress like Nazis, so long as they don't give Nazi salutes to Germans or write Nazi lyrics." He wore a WWII German cap and a pair of boots at one concert, no uniform. The Python team wore it on many more occassions. Are you suggesting they are Nazis? MegX (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the zillionth time. I never said Page was a Nazi. Obviously, Monty Python, being a bunch of comedians, they were making fun of Nazis. Are you suggesting that Page was trying to show the audience in Chicago he was a Monty Python fan or some kind of comedian? I'm confused about your suggestion that I can never lose my virginity to David Bowie. This is technically still possible considering he is bisexual and could always rape me and "deflower" me. What about Page having Bowie's sloppy seconds with Lori Maddox when she was just 14? How is the mention of Lori Maddox in the Bowie article relevant but not in the Page article?Pistolpierre (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you can only lose your virginity once. MegX (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're wrong. A bi-sexual loses their virginity twice. The first time when they are straight. The second time when they are gay. And if a child is raped by someone of the same sex they don't lose their virginity do they?Pistolpierre (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a dude. I have no doubt, you have no intention of adding to the David Bowie article, in which case you're position on Nazism and pedophilia is contradictory. MegX (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to say this. I have never said Page or Bowie are Nazis. I have asked whether they should be classified as pedophiles for having sex with a groupie when she was 13-14. My "position" is that the fact that Page dressed as a Nazi, an officer's cap, aviator sunglasses, and jack boots is in keeping with his interest in the occult. The swastika is a pagan occult symbol.Pistolpierre (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aviator sunglasses are neither Nazi nor occult. Jack boots are worn in many armies. The swastika is an art symbol also found in a non-religious context. You can see swastikas used to fill pottery lines in ancient Greek, American and Celtic artwork. Doesn't mean they are occult nor Nazi in nature. The swastika can be found in Hindusim but that doesn't mean Hindus are Nazis or Occultists for using it either. MegX (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hindus, ancient Greeks, Celts, and Native-Americans are all pagans aren't they? Were they all not mystic occultists with shamans, magicians, and fortune tellers? The Nazis were pagan mystics. Hitler was way into all kinds of mysticism. There was a show on the History Channel about Nazi mysticism and their occult pagan practices. As you know the Nazis adopted the swastika. It's like you are denying that Page dressed up like a Nazi. I am tired of your logic. It would be one thing if he just wore jack boots and sunglasses. But the Nazi cap is obviously part of his occult fascination. I'm waiting for you to say that Monty Python was making fun of ancient Greek, Native-American, Celtic, and Hindu religion.Pistolpierre (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good troll

I swear, this guy is great. He sprinkles in some legit contributions to keep his credibility decent, making the arguments even more fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.172.230 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)