User talk:DrVanSlyke

March 2011 multiple constructive edits
Your edits of March 2011 for Ezra Brooks Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey, Teacup, Tommy Maddox, and Widener University School of Law do not appear to be constructive. Please be aware that such disruption is harmful to the Wikipedia community and time-consuming to correct. If you want to experiment, I suggest to find out about the Wikipedia feature known as the sandbox. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the date, I initially assumed your inane, nosy message was an April Fool's prank. After I stopped laughing, I realized that you were actually taking yourself entirely seriously. My edits on the Teacup and Tommy Maddox articles were entirely factual (I in fact have a box of "Tommy Gun Flakes" cereal on display in my game room). Frankly, I don't care how the edits "appeared" to you, as you're clearly out of your element. As for the Ezra Brooks Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey page: yes, guilty as charged. I was having a bit of fun with a friend. I understand you fashion yourself to be some sort of whiskey expert, but if you've got some great problem with that, I suggest you find a sense of humor prior to the next April Fool's Day. DrVanSlyke (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you admit that you were "guilty as charged" regarding Ezra Brooks Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey, I think you can understand that I might view your other edits with some suspicion. Also, the Widener University School of Law edit still looks like vandalism to me (and you failed to mention that one in your reply). None of those edits were made on April Fool's Day (even if that would make a difference, and I don't think it does). I used the word "appear" because I was not entirely confident in all cases – I couldn't know for certain just by looking at them whether some of them were good-faith edits or not – especially since they were unsourced. If the edits you make to half of the pages that you edit are vandalism, then I suggest not expecting a very warm reception in general. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am, in fact, a graduate of Widener University School of Law. During my three years at the school, several students on the moot court and trial advocacy teams wore visors, both socially and during school hours. Furthermore, every player on our intramural softball team wore visors during practices and games.

If you are so interested in combing through other users' edits, I suggest you pursue trying to become an administrator with Wikipedia. I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend the integrity of my edits to another user, who should be unconcerned with them. DrVanSlyke (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And the part of the Widener University School of Law edit that's about faculty members publishing in the letters to the editor section of The Patriot-News ("Nosy Neighbor Got What She Deserved")? That still looks like a joke (even if literally true, it doesn't seem very encyclopedic). If you provide reference citations that identify reliable sources, we wouldn't need to guess whether your edits are serious or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)