Talk:Professor420

I've forwarded Prof to my page... if any of the other "ProfXYZ" members want they can remove it, or Prof can forward to a disambiguation page.

The internet = serious business - Livia

All flash and no substance. No real ideas or directions here. Just a dissatisfied rant by someone who doesnt understand the workings of an internet forum.

Neutrality

Seen as the Leader of the Wiki doesn't seem to understand the difference between User and Article namespaces and the clear fact that an article should be on the subject of the article, and not what the subject of the article thinks or has opinions on, I've put a well deserved Neutrality warning on the article.

Not that I would want to make accusations, but some probably ill-advised people could think that the real reason the rant remains is due to some kind of a bias between towards Prof by Perikles and that you both discussed the reversion over MSN or something to that nature (The edit times are extremely close to each other). Omnipotent-Q 16:32, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes I thanked him for the fact that he edited the changes you erroneously made. Now please keep your grimy hands off my article, and user, pages. Don't you have a forum to troll, or something? -Prof

The editing is completely justified under the ethos of what a Wiki is and isn't in any way erroneous. Perhaps you should ask Simetrical to explain the basic workings of a Wiki and how an article should be on its subject, not the article subject talking and ranting about something.

It's fairly obvious that you're a bit new to this whole Wiki thing. Its a rule of thumb that Neutrality templates are not removed until the dispute is resolved. Clearly it isn't, so it isn't your place to remove it. Omnipotent-Q 02:47, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

---

You deleted his work, I won't have people just deleting/vandalising other's work like that. It have put a neutrality template on the new Section called 'views on the Curia'. Prof is entitled to his views on the Curia and these may be a part of his main article, but not the main part of it. --Jp26991 04:39, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

---

Since when are political rants worthy enough to be in a knowledge base? Since when is a biased un-neutral rant that isn't on the article subject itself, but on something else "work". It sounds to be as if you're trying to feebly justify your bias, because the only other explanation is that you're totally clueless to how knowledge bases, articles and subjects in general and Wiki's work. Omnipotent-Q 08:04, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

---

If Prof wants to rant he can do, it has a neutrality 'warning' at the top and is it's own section. I would suggest it is you that is the biased one [1]. Maybe we should stick a neutrality warning on you? To suggest that Prof can't state his views on something in his own article is absurd, granted on most wiki's this would be done on the user page, but we don't have to follow the rules of all other wiki's. On something like Wikipedia, a user would state their views on a particular subject on their talk page like Sim has done here. However, this wiki is different as members are allowed to have a page about themselves as an article as the members of TWC are it's most important aspect, providing all discussion, content and mods. So, instead of having 2 pages, one for opinions and one for facts, I think it would be better to just keep them on one page. This does not imply a lack of knowledge, but a degree of logic. --Jp26991 09:05, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I haven't got an article on me so how could you even stick a neutrality warning on me? What an odd suggestion.

You are right. Not being a fan of some of Professor420's actions of course makes me and my observation that this is not an opinionated article a complete lie. So why did you leave the neutrality template there if you thought my points had no substance and were just biased? Some would say you're clutching at straws with the accusations of bias on my part there.

A Wiki, is, by definition, designed to provide knowledge. Facts, bluntly. Not opinions.

Yes, if you don't want to follow the well thought out and logical thought processes that have worked for every other Wiki (and knowledge base) in existence and then say that its logical not to follow it, then that's up to you, of course. This project will eventually crash and burn under such leadership when this gets more popular with people arguing and debating over opinions for any articles that are on this Wiki, rather than what facts should be in the articles themselves. This is logical you say? I'm not so sure it is.

I won't bother continually trying to convince you on this issue, I haven't the time. But don't tell me I haven't warned you though when you start to get arguments on massively opinionated articles that are littered with rants when this Wiki inevitably gets more popular. Omnipotent-Q en.wikipedia.org Administrator 15:24, 14 April 2007 (CDT)