Talk:List of people who have been pied/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

purpose etc

There's a very obvious discernable difference between a gag done on television for a sitcom and one done at a rally without prior arrangements without consent. Hence, the categories. The non-categoried list at the front contains those names who we don't have enough information about to put into one category or the other.

The only plausible motive for the reversion would be to clear up the section heading title of "political protest" to include "cultural" or somesuch. In which case, the appropriate move would be a title change, not a reversion. Lucidish 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the entire point of this article. It's about throwing pies as a political statement. Why would anybody write an article with the focus as a slapstick comedy routine? In that case, you could write an article about slipping on bannana peals or an article about pulling the chair out from behind someone. Pieing is a political act, in the context of this article.

As for your changes on the "List of people who have been pied" page, I don't understand them. You categories are arbitrary. You don't know the motive as to why these people were pied. Was Calvin Klein really pied for political reasons, as you have categorized him? Let's just leave it as a simple list. I'm reverting you there, too. Griot 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point, so there's nothing to miss.

Klein was a bystander against a cultural target. This is sourced on the page. Lucidish 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. This is an article about pies. Griot 00:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Griot

Yes?... And? Lucidish 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the people on this list are here because they are famous. Regardless of the political statements made, if a famous person gets pied, they should be on this list. Benguthrie (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided, of course, that it is a nonconsensual pieing and not merely a stage-managed publicity pieing in order to make this prestigeous list. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please explain how you would clean up this article. It's a list for crissakes. Griot 00:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would clean it up by reverting your edits, so that the sections are clearly delineated along obvious (and demonstrably true) lines. Your only objection to this point has been shown to be unfounded. Until then, this wiki is a complete mess (no pun intended). Lucidish 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make suggestions for "sections" and demonstrate to me why each section you suggest is "obvious" and "demonstrably true." How is a simple list a "complete mess"? If you want to classify these names under headings, demonstrate why that would be of value and what criteria you propose for putting each name under each heading. Griot 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sections: those who were pied on television or film versus those who were pied as a political or cultural statement. Criteria: consented, and did not consent, respectively. Objective: if the linked articles (or knowledge of the editor) indicates that they belong in one category or the other. If neither, place in uncategorized list at top. All this is repetition of what I've already said. Lucidish 22:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this list was "pied on television or film." Are you proposing to include, for example, Laurel and Hardy on this list because they were pied in a film? I don't understand that. As far as I can tell, everyone on this list was pied for political reasons. I'm not clear what you mean by "cultural reasons." Why would someone be pied for cultural reasons, and can you give me an example of that? I think your suggestion for an "uncategorized" category proves why your idea of categorizing fails. Many people would be placed in the "uncategorized" category, which defeats the purpose of categorization. (Have a good weekend. Mine starts right now.) Griot 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the list. With a bit of Googling, you can find out exactly where each was pied. Christina Aguilera, for instance, was pied on the Mickey Mouse club as a kid. I'm not proposing any additions - I think it's silly and a waste of time - I'm just working with the materials that are actually, literally here. The "uncategorized" category is not very big at all, if you look at the edited list; and those names could easily just be eliminated until somebody provides sources.

By "cultural", I mean attacks on celebrities that don't seem to be associated with any political agenda, but rather are there to deflate an ego. Lucidish 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera should not be on this list if she was pied as part of TV entertainment. I'm removing her. "Cultural" isn't a very good heading; you're using the term de facto to categorize celebrities (and what do celebrities have to do with culture anyway?). If you want to divide this list into politicians, singers, actors, authors, TV personalities, and models, that's okay by me, except I'm not sure why it would be particularly useful to anybody. Would someone come to this list looking for politicians who've been pied? For authors? Griot 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these instances wouldn't fall under that heading of 'political or cultural statements', because the heading was quite explicitly to do with "statements". This doesn't include sitcoms, which are more akin to cultural entertainment. If that's not a very good heading, then fine: the point is just that there's a distinction between that which is consented and that which isn't. Name it what you like.

As an aside, since you asked: a culture is a set of behaviors, ideas, and attitudes that are reliable and re-occurring amongst a certain people, usually restricted to a specific geographic area. The word "celebrity" is related to the word "celebrate", indicating they are persons who have a number of fans. To have a number of fans, is to say that there is a set of people who display certain fanatic behavior towards an individual (the celebrity), and have a certain happy attitude toward them. To talk about that which makes a celebrity a celebrity, is to talk about a subculture. That is why celebrities are significant to culture.

The fact that you're removing pre-existing references, while at the same time your original argument (albeit an anti-Wikipedian and irrelevant one) had to do with original intent, shows astounding hypocricy. How could you possibly reasonably reconcile these? Lucidish 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think culture is a virus. But no matter. "That which is consented and that which isn't"? Astounding hypocrisy"? C'mon. This is a list of people who have been pied fer crissakes. Let's get down to brass tacks and suspend the sopohmoric philosophizing, alright? You come up with a list of categories for these names and we'll debate the category names. After that, we can sort the names by category. Meanwhile, people who were pied as part of entertainment -- in other words, pied in fictional settings like TV or the movies -- will be removed from the list. Griot 16:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for an explanation. I gave it. Deal.

Since you're clearly not acting in good faith, I'm putting an NPOV notice up. Lucidish 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Since I'm not acting in good faith, shouldn't you put up a "Not acting in good faith" notice. I'm funnin' ya Luce. I just don't see why you want to enjoin this pissing match or how pieing can even be a subject for a point of view. You take a paper plate. You spray some whipped cream on the plate. You hold the plate on the palm of your hand. You cock your arms. You throw. It's supposed to be funny. You know, like laughter funny? Know what I mean? Griot 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to improve the wiki. You block my efforts without reason. The content of the article is meaningless to me; rather, the point is that I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, and attempting to dialogue in good faith, but am being denied both. Lucidish 02:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed categories for this list

Please suggest categories for this list here. Griot 16:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Already done this. See discussion above, and history page. Lucidish 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We're still in the suggestion stage. Wee need to see what the category names are before we can decide whether sections are worthwhile. I think we decided that the section names you proposed before were inadqueate, as more than a third of the names were uncategorized. Please suggest section names so we can decide on which sections to have.Griot 18:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the alternative of "voluntary" and "involuntary". Lucidish 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean two categories, one called "Involuntary" and one called "Voluntary"? Griot 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lucidish 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And the "Involutary" pied would be politicians and the like who were pied in public, and the "Voluntary" pied would be people who were pied in movies and TV show as part of a comedy routine? Griot 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lucidish 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Voluntary" and "Involuntary" work, in that some of the TV show celebs who were pied were pied involuntarily as part of TV pranks, etc. How about these two categories: "People pied in political or social protests" and "People pied in movies and TV"? Griot 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Lucidish 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

list cleanup and cited vs uncited

I am slowly converting this to the table format, if other people want to help that would be great. Once I get it in table format I'm going to start alphabetizing the list. Depending on how unwieldy the final table is (which is likely to be "very"), I'll probably break it down into subsections such as politicians/heads of state, journalists, TV/Movies stars, etc.

Also, what do people think in terms of what to do with cited vs. uncited pieings? I see great potential for abuse by adding names to this list who haven't actually been pied. Do we want to just leave them marked as uncited, or do we remove them from the list (possibly putting them on the talk page) until cites are found? Thoughts? Improbcat 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Some info was deleted from the "Prem Rawat" entry without comment. I've restored it. Please use the talk page to discuss. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Bronconnier pie

Although I can verfiy it happened as I remember the news coverage, we still need a source for that one and I've marked it accordingly. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

How notable is this?

Not very, I think.

Lu na ke et 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (2nd nomination). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:CCC - Consensus can change. Hopefully one day Wikipedia will do the right thing by this article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows

Can someone who knows what they are doing please add Elizabeth Montgomery, Dick York and Agnes Moorehead to the list; they were pied on a "Bewitched" episode. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.211.232 (talk • contribs)

Don't think that would count, unless it was the actors that were pied and not the characters. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming (moving) and article focus

Should we rename this article to focus on pieings of notable public figures? E.g., “List of public figures who have been pied”. Perhaps an even narrower focus to “List of politically-motivated pieings of public figures”? —GrantNeufeld (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The basic notability requirements - that the pieing is documented by third party reliable sources - should really be enough to ensure that the "pieee" is notable. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat pieing article

I have deleted the entry that suggested that Prem Rawat was the leader of DLM because it is not correct. As pointed out in the book “Peace is Possible” by Andrea Cagan, it was Bob Mishler who was the leader of the organization known as Divine Light Mission, not Prem Rawat.

I also deleted the description of Prem Rawat as being “formerly known as GMJ” and the sentence that stated that “followers beat Pat Haley” since these are extraneous information that do not belong in the description of this pie-throwing incident. Gadadhara (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gadadhara (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Its probably best to delete material that belongs in an article, not a list, especially if the material is disputed. Please read my comments below in support of deleting this list. You might consider voting for deletion next time around.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the info. Cagan's book is not a reliable source. There is no question that Guru Maharaj Ji was hit with a pie. There is no question that GMJ/Rawat was the leader of the DLM. And there is no question that the pie thrower was beaten by followers. There are literally dozens of sources to support those assertions. These facts are all directly connected to the pie throwing incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but that's the problem. If we start adding facts "directly connected to the pie throwing incident" as you put it, the list would become bloated with mini articles and and this discussion page would probably degenerate into something unworkable.--Zanthorp (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire entry is 36-words long. That's not even a full paragrpah, much less a "mini-article". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to restrict the list to the most basic information, something akin to good housekeeping, but I don't own the page. If you want to start adding additional facts that you think might be "connected", go for it. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion

This list serves only to encourage prospective offenders who know that they and like-minded associates will be able to gloat over the record of assault preserved at Wikipedia. Perhaps reasons for deletion were not adequately explained during previous nominations for deletion.

The comments of Canadian judge T.C. Semenuk before sentencing a pie thrower are well worth considering. "Public embarrassment, humiliation, and ridicule of public figures is the usual motive behind pie assaults. In my view, the notion that these assaults are light-hearted and non-violent is misplaced. There is nothing funny about these assaults. They are often violent. Some of them actually cause injury, not only to the target, but to innocent bystanders who may get caught up in the inevitable melee that follows the assault. As a form of protest it is unacceptable because the accused is breaking the law... In my view, The Court has a duty to deter this type of criminal behaviour." Wikipedia can also help to deter this type of illegal and unacceptable behavior by deleting this page. Listing names of offenders and victims can only encourage prospective offenders.--Zanthorp (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the same argument could be made for List of United States presidential assassination attempts. I'm not convinced. Nothing in this page glorifies pie throwing, any more than that the other list glorifies assassination. However that comment from the judge woulld make an interesting addition to pieing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between throwing a pie at someone and attempting to assassinate a president. The response to each is correspondingly different. Conflating these issues obfuscates the discussion. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this list glorifies pieing, while the assassination one doesn't. Can you explain your point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained my main point very clearly in the first sentence above. I don't understand why you seem unable to grasp the idea. I did not use the words "glorifies pieing" and I did not say that "the assassination one doesn't." Those are your words, not mine.--Zanthorp (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, to be precise you said, "This list serves only to encourage prospective offenders". How does it encourage prospective offenders? Does the list of assassinations also encourage prospective offenders? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This list serves only to encourage prospective offenders because they and like-minded associates will be able to gloat over the record of the act preserved at Wikipedia. There is nothing in this or the quote from judge Semenuk about glorification or assassinating presidents. I have tried my best to explain my point of view. This is as much as I can do to help you understand it. I see no point in continuing this discussion.--Zanthorp (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Proposed Deletions of this List

As of October 2008, this list was nominated for deletion three times. If you are considering it for deletion a fourth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on three spearate occassions:

Thanks. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

repeats

There are a lot of repeats... I have seen Bill Gates in there at least three times, on the same incident. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Though the list is sortable, perhaps it should have a default sort or either the name of the pied-person or the date. Either of those would minimize duplications. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the list uses at least two different date formats. We should decide on one and stick with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

victims of crimes category

I'm not sure that pieing is a crime. Will remove it unless evidence or an argument is presented otherwise. -- Craigtalbert 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they consent to be pied, then it's not, but if it's nonconsensual pieing, then it would qualify as an assault or even battery -- a nonconsensual, harmful or insulting contact. Simple battery is a misdemeanor in most common law jurisdictions, and is a basis for civil actions in tort. I don't think it should be only classified under criminal actions; comedic routines, social protests, and so on, should also be added as appropriate. ... Those other categories don't currently exist under the overpopulated "Category:Lists of people" category, and there aren't enough related articles to create them yet. ... Are there other categories that would be better? --LQ 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my experience (WAAKE-UP!) it was ruled to be harassment and criminal mischief. My concern was that it wasn't "in the books" as a crime the same way that stealing or murder might be. But if it's generally considered to be criminal, I guess it makes sense. -- Craigtalbert 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criminal mischief would be a crime, just not a very serious one. I imagine that most pieing incidents would get treated as very nonserious crimes (misdemeanor assaults, criminal mischief, that sort of thing). This makes me realize that we should include language at the top of the "list of victims of crimes" category that makes it clear that crimes range from very minor (like pieing) to major (like murder, rape, kidnapping); and "victimhood" likewise can be very minor (not even involving harm, to involving very serious harm). I'll do that now, understanding that that change doesn't necessarily resolve this question --LQ 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

dates

I'd like to point out a small problem with the date sorting. 1's come first, then april, february, july, june, august, january, march, monday, november, october, tuesday. While I personally organize my own calendar by this system to make sure nobody else can find out where I'll be that day if they happen to find my day planner, it might be better for an encyclopedia to use a system that lends itself to alphabetical sorting. 208.125.19.90 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also noted the problem with the dates, above. To allow them to sort properly they should be in the ISO-standard, year-numeric month-day format, or 1998-04-31. Unfortunately, few of us are accustomed to using that scheme. But for the purposes of this list maybe it'd be a good idea to use it. Likewise, the names of the victims should be "last, first" for correct sorting, but that has other problems so it's probably not worthy trying. Another option is to do away with the sortable table, and just sort by name or date. If we go that route I'd vote for sorting by date. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use Template:Dts then the dates can appear normally but be sortable. Someone will have to go through and change them though. Likewise Template:Sortname will solve the problem for names :) Mattlore (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

column for "reason"

Would it be excessive to create a column for reason for the pieing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.91.59 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. It might be tight for size though. ~ R.T.G 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Proposed Deletions of this List

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a neccesary article

If you watch baseball at all you know that there may be 200+ players "pied" throughout any given season. You may as well create a wiki entry for "List of Coaches Doused in Gatorade." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.219.216 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous nominations for deletions

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Change "Position" to "Known for"

...because it better reflects the contents of the column. E.g. "anti-gay activist" is not exactly a position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk • contribs) 16:40, May 9, 2011

I nominate this article for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.180.222 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reuven Rivlin

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/9/83164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.132.194 (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous nominations for deletions

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous nominations for deletions

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060327112739/http://www.oxfordstudent.com:80/tt2000wk0/news/widdecombe_gets_her_just_desserts%3F to http://www.oxfordstudent.com/tt2000wk0/news/widdecombe_gets_her_just_desserts%3F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous nominations for deletions

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160418192710/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQvPHMoVn0s to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQvPHMoVn0s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Tiswas

Editors may wish to find an expert on Tiswas, the British children's TV series of the 1970s. For some time, famous guests were pied every week by the Phantom Flan Flinger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.103.71 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who have been pied. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927080420/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/pie-thrower-speaks-out-photos-emerge-of-scuffle-with-kevin-johnson/vp-BBwwtrK to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/pie-thrower-speaks-out-photos-emerge-of-scuffle-with-kevin-johnson/vp-BBwwtrK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous nominations for deletions

As of May 2011, this list was nominated for deletion four times. If you are considering it for deletion a fifth time, please read why Wikipedians voted to keep it on four previous occasions before you nominate it a fifth time:

Thanks. Chisme (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

date column

The date column as it is is rather useless, being sorted by the name of the month, instead of YY/MM/DD. Unfortunately, because of missing mediawiki-knowledge I am unable to fix this. regards. --Gerlindewurst73 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Pieing as drama

I notice several entries in this list that describe pie-throwing in the course of TV shows and movies. These are scripted acts of pieing. I propose removing them. This list as I understand it is supposed to be about pieing as a political act. Chisme (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The article should at least be more clear about which pieings are scripted. Epbr123 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)