Jump to content

User talk:Milowent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TruthfulPerson (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 11 May 2010 (→Neo-Birtherism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm milowent, of http://www.anchorcove.net

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Milowent, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.


We're so glad you're here!

Aww...

Aww, Milo, I miss you! I stopped by and talked to OIC the other night about Guitar Hero, but you weren't around and I was sad. What can I say... I'm glad I jumped ships when I did. I still watch QL, but the rest of the entire medium is lost to me. I blame Google. --JayHenry (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Zac Efron as Daniel. I have a calendar, Milo :) --JayHenry (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miloooo! I was just thinking of you the other day when I read this story. How have you been?? As to your question: you can't copy them verbatim, but it's generally acceptable to include links to them in the External Links section of an article, or to use them as sources for non-controversial claims. --JayHenry (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last merge

This may interest you; Talk:LG15: The Last#Merge.--Otterathome (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, Milo. AFD is an ugly place, huh? I often find merging to be an okay option so long as the information is preserved. I cringe at merges when it's really just a way to get rid of information, but if the content can be wholly ported over (which looks to be the case here) I've gotten so I can stomach it. I dunno, just a thought. Wikipedia attracts a lot of smart, creative people. And it's got an audience that makes it actually sort of matter. But because of the audience it also attracts a lot of lunatics and the pathologically destructive (where else can a bored person go to destroy something of any consequence on the internet?). Good work keeping Jackson free of the meat grinder. What's the cast up to these days? --JayHenry (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What 'official source' contains the birthdate?--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Noian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikistalking

Your wikistalking of me is getting tiresome, I suggest you stop. And the source for the birthdate isn't good, it's is a community edited wiki and was only protected after its creation.--Otterathome (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you write without a care for your ignorance of the subject matter at hand. All material on the current LGPedia page for Jackson Davis is official. Only by following your edits was I able to become aware of your personal vendetta against Lonelygirl15 related articles. You will see I that I have branched out now on Wikipedia and am trying to contribute substantively in other areas. --Milowent (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that Milowent is WP:Wikistalking you. You are attacking pages in which he has a stated interest and therefore probably has on his Watchlist. I know they are on mine. Please assume good faith. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the squad

Here to help articles tagged for rescue!

Hi, Milowent, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]




Hope to see you soon helping with articles. Ikip (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding AFDs

Hi Milowent. I've made a post to WT:AFD#"Having to" defend articles against deletion, which was conceived partly in response to your post here. If you have anything to say in response, I'd certainly be interested to hear your input. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a really thoughtful, brilliant response. Thanks. I am proud that you are a member of the squad. Your first barnstar I believe:
The Socratic Barnstar
The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments.

This barnstar is awarded to Milowent for their brilliant explanation about the psychology behind Articles for deletion, thank you. Ikip (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wowee!

Thanks for the barnstar.  :-) Indeed its my first. Its amazing how much text can be generated in these discussions, I'm glad you thought my contribution worthwhile. --Milowent (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I find even more amazing, is users comments are sacred, and cannot be deleted, even if the editors are bullshiting about something as pedestrian as the weather, but a well researched article with several dozen footnotes is at risk of deletion anytime, as many times as editors get the urge, in a variety of ways, even by a new editor.
soap boxing aside, thanks for the brillant comments. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About that Quizbowl AfD...

Ok does it strike you as somewhat odd that several new users have been popping up, two in that AfD and one that created the User:bullofconfusion account, all with seeming knowledge of AfD &or policy? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is odd. Not shocking i guess, sometimes people get jazzed over bizarre subjects. --Milowent (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...have I been reading too much WP:SPI?? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objectivethinker has an opinion for a reason, he's hardly unbiased himself.--Milowent (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True...I just wonder where he came from and why his first edits were to jump into this AfD on the side of bullofconfusion, and wiht much the same arguments as bullofconfusion...it's probably just because I read SPI too much, but it sounds very fishy in the meat or sock department...I don't know...and especially so seeing as the account was created today (September 9) after the AfD was created... Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could very well be the same person; I don't know much about how sock investigations are triggered. It could also be that objective and bull are disgruntled former fringe quiz bowl members from the same team with an ax to grind.--Milowent (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I set up a sockpuppet investigation on the users, it can be found at [1]. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only am I not a sockpuppet, I am warning you for the uncivil language you used towards me on that talk page when I never addressed any other user with anything but propriety. The entire tone of that page and the "sockpuppet" investigation, based on nothing more than the fact that multiple people disagreed with you, are also clear violations of WP:AGF. Bullofconfusion (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop-tee-doo, Bull. I know you are a big boy. And a smart boy as well. So just come off and help improve the article, its clear you are knowledgeable on the subject. --Milowent (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made several edits tonight, as well as a comment regarding discussion of what is "preferred." IMHO, the standards of any one state or association shouldn't be discussed in the context of the general article (violates wp:npov) Perhaps discussion of preferences should be limited to that state or association? Interested in your viewpoint, since you're coming from a different angle.Mensa1960 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there then

Have enjoyed your input on the Glenn Beck page. I'm not subtle about it: I think he's a potentially quite dangerous fear-monger. Seems like the Beck "Constitutional Watchdogs"(although his and their familiarity with the actual document is, at the very least, in doubt: see the Youtube video of the self-professed Beck fan shouting about the "U.S.S. CONSTITUTION" without citing a single section of the document) have come to Wikipedia to worship their hero. Why I retreat from Wikipedia for long spells....Jimintheatl (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck

Sorry I reverted your change there. I did think about it before doing so if that makes it any better. I don't disagree that Beck is controversial to some degree. But here is why I removed it, and I see Arzel did as well... The lead of the article, in particular the first sentence is probably the most sensitive place you can place a term. It needs to be well sourced and accurate - it's the primary definition of the article subject. Controversial can mean different things, and just because someone has large opposition doesn't make them a controversial person. I'm asking myself, would not every major political commentator fall into a similar category - what makes Beck different, are they all controversial and in what way? I'm also not sure we can translate things like a controversial statement or a controversial policy, into the person is controversial. So we need some sources and clarification on this, and it's likely best placed in the Commentary and reception section, and not the lead sentence. In any case, it needs some discussion. Hope this better explains my actions. Morphh (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on this on the Glenn Beck page but there certainly are enough WP:RS which describe the man himself as controversial. I sympathize with Milowent's frustration at being jumped on and reverted for trying to contribute what appears to be a very legitimate addition to the article. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Thanks ObserverNY. Its pathetic. There are discussion threads outside wikipedia laughing at the glenn beck page. --Milowent (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that explains why my talk page was vandalized so often last month. And it explains your animosity toward me. Bytebear (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't condone vandalism of your page, nor have any personal animosity toward you. I assume you are acting in good faith, we have just have varying opinions. --Milowent (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep are funny?

We're watching you!

I couldn't get a hold of my friend Shaun, who had some stern words for you ("meh, meh"--or something like that), so I left you a visual reminder of the pain and agony inflicted upon these four-footed lovelies by articles such as exploding sheep (this picture was taken right after they ate a printout of the article). Just look at their sad eyes...

Praise

Dear Milowent, It appears I owe you an apology. I am sorry. I thought badly of you and suspected foul play (I still do of others, no group should work closely together at AfDs or DelRev's), but you turned around and totally humbled me with your helpful edits to my new attempt at an article Vladimir Ivir. You have shown me with positive reinforcement that all may not be soooo evil as I seem to see... Thank you so much. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really am evil.  :-) Seriously though, I do like to improve articles, not delete them, whenever possible. For Vladimir Ivir it would be helpful if we could include something in the article about his research contributions, with citation for support -- I'm thinking some of his research has to do with the use of "formal correspondence" as a technique, based on some seraching but that may not be all. I couldn't tell what his role was on the English-Croatian dictionary, Google Translate only goes so far. --Milowent (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Jesus

Yes, it was short on Cats, now the cat is longer. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would find this interesting.Cptnono (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, didn't realize it was at the AfD already.Cptnono (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Re your comment [2] regarding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, thanks. The operating system tables alone took about a month to create. The Release history section currently looks wrong due to a bad faith TFD nomination. I've been working on expanding/improving both this article and Category:Internet Relay Chat as a whole. When I began we didn't have much categorized nor did we really have any sort of navigational templates. You might want to note that all of the rabid "delete" and kill it with fire type !votes in the BitchX AfD are all parties to this AN/I discussion. This is not a coincidence; these individuals have systematically targeted a large number of IRC-related articles in retaliation towards me with regards to things laid out in that AN/I discussion. Check the article alerts section of the IRC WikiProject for a whole list of articles and other pages that have been targeted as part of this group.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Schools

The AfD about the prisons was interesting. I don't know why Summit School (Queens, New York) was kept. High schools are inherently notable. How? According to Wikipedia:Notability (schools), they haven't achieved a consensus. So how are high schools inherently notable? Esthertaffet (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility / bad faith

If you continue your incivil and bad faith edits towards me in edits such as these[3][4][5][6] you may be temporarily blocked.--Otterathome (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope, Otter. You are a turd editor and you know it. You have skills but choose to use them very questionably. I have tried to reason with you time and again to no use.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Milowent_Incivility_.2F_bad_faith.--Otterathome (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it. And if you're any more explicit than the above, I'll need to block you. Yes, some of his edits are highly annoying, but that isn't license to attack him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* Could you two give it a break already? Otterathome– Tubefilter: WP:STICK. Milowent– name calling is only going to upset Otterathome and make things worse. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've taken a bit of time to cool off. Otterathome, regardless of anything else, I apologize for my uncivil comments. Thanks to all who posted on the ANI, and to Sarek and Toth above, I appreciate your kindness. --Milowent (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Moss, you asked about the reputation of The Daily Telegraph. The AfD is now closed, but the Telegraph is considered one of the five national daily "newspapers focused on serious journalism" in the UK. See List of newspapers in the United Kingdom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from KTrimble

I wanted to thank you for your words of encouragement in the middle of the Ze Plane! Ze Plane! deletion thing.

Based on your encouraging tone, I tried to author one more article Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions before giving up, but it too got deleted before I could make the first edit or add the first reference.

What am I doing wrong? I search for specific things on Wikipedia, and a lot of the articles I find are crap, with no references, poorly written, poorly organized, sometimes completely wrong, and often on some of the dumbest subjects, and they have been there for months, sometimes years. I try to make an edit, and it gets reversed within minutes; I try to author a new page, and it gets blasted within seconds. What gives? --KTrimble (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KTrimble -- Extraordinary_Assumptions_and_Hypothetical_Conditions is not yet deleted, though it is proposed for deletion and has at most a week for that discussion. I believe there are many bad old articles on wikipedia, but they were created before people became sticklers for references and such, and old articles only get nominated for deletion over time; when it comes to new articles, sometimes unfortunately editors are overzealous to nominate them for deletion. I think that's a bad development, frankly, but its hard to change that culture at this point. But it can be navigated with a few simple tricks. If you are starting an article and don't have references at first, I recommend you start the article in your own userspace (i.e., a subpage under KTrimble, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KTrimble/Extraordinary_Assumptions_and_Hypothetical_Conditions&action=edit). Then, when you feel the article is ready for the wolves (maybe you seek another editor's opinion like mine, or anyone really, before you do it), you "move" (using move tab at top) the article into the "mainspace" of wikipedia. Its really a good idea to use that method when you are trying to create an in-depth article like these. SarekOfVulcan has suggested in the deletion discussion (AfD = articles for deletion, by the way) that the three related articles be "userfied" (meaning moved into your userspace) so that you can improve them. I think that's a good idea here, so you get a fresh slate and get rid of the unfortunate delete votes it is getting so far.
When an article doesn't have any references, and is on a topic unfamiliar with editors, it may be tagged as "O.R." meaning Original Research. Sometimes this means the nominator hasn't researched the subject; but sometimes they are right -- people mistakenly try to use wikipedia to post original research all the time. We all pay for that type of misuse. I have to say, I could see why your article would get caught in that snag here. Please not to be discouraged, the learning curve exists, but once you negotiate it, things aren't really that bad. --Milowent (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, but I went ahead and called for its deletion. The explanation is on the deletion page. I am guessing that you or Sarek are administrators or maybe have some sort of input. I would try to suggest to somebody that the place for discussions about the subject matter is in the talk pages, either of the article or of the contributors, like all of the instructions claim, not under the gun on a deletion page. Let an article get some exposure and grow a little bit before considering deletion--don't delete it right out of the box. If an article has problems, discuss it, require explanations. I don't mind defending an article or arguing over fine points of content. But deleting an article right after it is created has a different dynamic. Deleting an article (or a photo) says
  • 'I think your item is crap'
  • 'I have the power to delete your contribution, so my opinions are more valued than yours'
  • 'Here are a few cryptic letters regarding why I think this is crap, if you want to find out more, you need to chase me down at my talk page'
  • 'If you don't adequately defend or modify your contribution within the proscribed timeframe, it goes away'.
This is supposed to be fun. My natural response is to punt. I had originally envisioned a whole series of maybe a hundred articles on two or three subjects that I knew something about and doing some major rewrites to some existing articles. I am not going to go through this on every one. Right now I am working on some deadlines in the real world involving some big bankruptcies a couple of failing banks that are going to war with each other and with the Feds. Or I can work on a new Wikipedia deletion deadline. Its an easy choice. But I sincerely thank you again for your encouragement. --KTrimble (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Do You like a Truck

I'd argue keep if someone made ann article on Geo da Silva. Maybe you can help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Miley/Liam

I'm sorry I reverted your edits a second time without explaining first! I removed the info without checking the history, assuming it was a different user.

Although a lot of reliable sources report on their relationship and I believe them, Miley and Liam have both said they are not dating. Because of Wikipedia's policy on living people, we have to respect their public statements and assume they are both single. If you look at the relationships Miley has had in the past that are included in her article, we waited to add them until Miley herself admitted to the relationship. We did not post Liam's alleged 5 year relationship with a schoolmate, although she told the major magazine Women's Day about it, because Liam has not confirmed it. I hope that helps, and I'm sorry for not explaining more throughly earlier! Liquidluck (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sensing...

...this is a good line! I wished I had thought of it -- would have included it in the nomination. — CactusWriter | needles 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Malia Obama‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Since I don't know any of you, and don't edit any of the articles in question, I'd encourage anybody concerned to not to respond to personal comments, personal attacks or statements of bad faith but instead drop me a note on my talkpage with a link to the discussion concerned, so I can deal with the problem. As you say, this seems a long-running dispute that has wasted a great deal of everybody's time, so hopefully taking a very firm line on civility will result in less heat and more light. I'm quite ready to block people if this becomes necessary. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malia

This campaign by some to speedily close discussion is just wikilawyering and causing disruption. All we want is a good article about Malia. I've written in ANI about why she is notable, even those oppose admit she is "marginally notable". Try to suggest that Mrs. Obama gets her fame from Barack and see how far that bad logic takes you. SRMach5B (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Is it time to delete Laura Bush now too? I think its appropriate for a separate Malia Obama article, and it will inevitably be its own article sooner or later. I'll chime in on the ANI; I was told before that Deletion Review is where this would need to go. If it goes to DRV now, its quite possible that the editors who are in favor of the redirect will skew the view of consensus (not because of any bad motive, mind you, but just from being more invested at this point contributing and defending their views). When Wikipedia has a gap like this, typically the article keeps getting recreated by less-frequent contributors who can't believe there isn't one, and eventually it sticks. So over time, the system sorta works.--Milowent (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. ANI has decided that BLP/N is the correct forum and that people should not remove it there. SRMach5B (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the unprotect column (re-listed), there is every reason to have it and the only reason not to is "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". It is hypocracy to allow Bo but not Malia. Malia does more than eat, unlike Bo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor of Gotham City (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with admiration

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your amazing work pulling relevant sourcing out of Brian Roehrkasse. I thought that one wasn't going to be notable, only found this in reviewing closed AFDs. RayTalk 16:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Citation Barnstar

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For your extensive work on fixing and verifying citations in an article that you think should be deleted, I hereby award you the Citation Barnstar! Nice work, keep it up. kelapstick (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to quite a few AfD's where the article looked great based on the volume of sources (poorly labeled), but when they were refined, it was apparent that they either were not reliable (typically self published), or didn't actually support what was being claimed. It can be quite frustrating, and it is helpful when someone does the legwork to clear things up.--kelapstick (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second the notion that you deserve a barnstar for your work in verifying the citations. On another, related note, BullRangifer seems upset about some factual inaccuracies in your comment. You may wish to strikeout some of the text, on the basis of assuming good faith. I have asked BullRangifer to try to remain more civil. DigitalC (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Weiner Davis

Hi I am a new editor at Wikipedia and my first project that I’ve taken on by accident it turned out to be is the contested deletion of the article Biography of Michele Weiner Davis that you had voted on back in September of last month. I had spoken to the editor Karanacs shortly after the article was recently deleted a second time because when I first contested the deletion when I came across her name in red letters in Wikipedia during my first week here as an user, another editor came along and just completed her Bio for me (See Graeme Bartlett (talk) remarks on my user talk page) but the article still failed to meet the standards for inclusion. I asked Karanacs if I could try and attempt to gather the needed references to try and make this right for inclusion and she said I could give it a go. Please take a look at the references I have put together for Michele W.D. to see if the article might be able to meet the inclusion standards now. I have omitted any personal information I have collected thus far until I see if this will be a go or not. Thank You for you time John Francis. Tinkermen (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milowent. I saw a similar comment on another user's talk page so I went ahead and created Michelle Weiner-Davis. Feel free to add to it or merge in the old article version as is appropriate. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

An issue that you discussed is being discussed in the WP:RFPP page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayor of Gotham City (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Tubefilter for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Otterathome (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have many friends do you? I am trying to be friendly.--Milowent (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Myspace or Match.com, and isn't going to become anything like it due to the many idiots like you on the site.--Otterathome (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know you love me.--Milowent (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your comment at AN/I

Comments like these:

You guys are being discussed here again? Oh Miami33139, you're a total drama queen lover, aren't you? You relish having driven Tothwolf crazy. "I can not fully participate in the Wikipedia project because I must walk on eggshells to avoid upsetting another user." Bwhahahahaha. Thank god I'm not an elementary school teacher, as I've no idea how to stop this inanity.--Milowent (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

are not acceptable. WP:NPA. At AN/I you should help to resolve disputes. Comments like that do not help at all. Thank you.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know these guys and I think it will help, that was my intent. You can remove it if you feel otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one appreciated the attempt at some humor ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you learned yet, Wikipedia is no place for humor! Mathieas (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Nope. Won't remove it if you think it will help. Let's just see what happens. Just be a bit less colourful next time if you know what i mean.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drumroll....

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For the heroic rescue of Kuhn's Quality Foods. Thank you. MuffledThud (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned non-free image (File:WilliamSwanberg-11-2005bookingshot.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WilliamSwanberg-11-2005bookingshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series)

FYI: I have nomiated this page for deletion. As I have said in the nomination, I don't believe that the subject of the article itself is notable, and WP is not a directory. Guinness (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!!

I don't know how to thank you enough for saving the Stephanie Bennett article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibadunno (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Molly Windman

Hello. I suggested the deletion of the article on Molly Windman. You removed the template with the following comment: gonna de-prod. though article is sparse, i do think there are sufficient sources out there to improve article'

Could you please explain why the removal of the article should be stopped? As far as I understand Molly W. does not meet any criteria of "fame" to have an article on Wikipedia.

LMB (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am smiling disturbingly at you

And will continue to do so until you remove your comments about the Wikipedian Game. Jonny4026 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Milowent, Jonny4026 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Request for your opinion

Hi Milowent, I wanted to get your opinion on my progress in trying to improve an article that you had voted to delete. It is here [7] in my user space. Since the deletion I have shortened the article to a great extent, replaced some rotlinked sources with screenprints of when they were active, I added some screenshots of the significant coverage source (TV show coverage), improved the refs, and added a paragraph entitled "Resulting Lasting Impact in the Field of..." which provides a clear corrolation with article subject and significant impact. I believe that now the article meets WP:PROF 1 and 4, there are 2 good RS one significant, that meets WP:N, notable enough to meet WP:GNG, mainly for his activities on the WP:fringe (his strict translation standards theories are very fringe, as I recently realized), as well as WP:ANYBIO (2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.)(see "resulting lasting impact" paragraph). What are your thoughts? And, can you provide me with some help and advice for improvements? I would be much obliged. The red link to my very first article created is an eyesore..... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saterfrisian Wikipedia

Thank you for introducing me to that interesting discussion! --Pyt (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shiny pretty things`

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your great work on Guido (slang). Nice work! tedder (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrV

I think you misplaced a comment at DrV meant for Google Watch in the DrV below it. Easy enough to do. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh fiddlesticks. thanks, i think i fixed it now.--Milowent (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaycarl

I tried improving the article a bit by adding two references and the text that "Shaytards" recently won the Best YouTube Channel or Personality category of the Open Web Awards. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays to you and yours Milowent. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saterland Frisian Wikipedia

I've been trying to find some links to use as references for the article, but to no avail. If I knew German I might be able to find something but I haven't been able to find anything in English or the Sater Frisian language itself. I'll keep trying though! --Mike Oosting (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FloNi

I'm pretty sure that Scottish Times article you gave as a ref actually used us as a ref, and thus is no good. Find me refs pre-dating 2006, and which aren't from TVTropes, and I'll consider restoring it... if only for an AfD. DS (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie State Winery

Regarding the article on Prairie State Winery you're of course in your full right to de-PROD it, and make me AfD it instead. I just want to say that I find the argument "article has sourcing" doesn't really have any bearing on WP:N and "cites proposed guidelines and essay" fairly unconvincing, since they are not just made up, but very well worked through, and fully based on established guidelines in combination with a lot of subject matter knowledge. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My views behind that deprodding are probably made evident by my most recent contribution to the DRV of Valhalla at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_6. My apologies for not going into more depth in my deprodding comment. I do believe things should only be deprodded if they are clearly notable, or where notability is in significant enough question that an AfD is the better way to get a definitive answer.--Milowent (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Chaddsford Winery"

Hi there. I hope you don't mind, but I tagged your accidentally-created redirect "Chaddsford Winery" for deletion, because it's an implausible typo that probably doesn't need a redirect. Based off your edit summary, it seemed like you agreed. Let me know if there's any problem with that and I'll be glad to reconsider it. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete it! thanks.--Milowent (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Dorotka

Hi Milowent, I appreciate your work on this article but I've decided to nominate it for deletion (here) for the reasons I expressed at the author's talk. Just FYI, though I assume you were watching the page anyway.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Vineyards DRV

Truly I was hoping to avoid a DRV. I asked the closing admin to userfy the article for me and he started giving me a hard time insisting that I take it to DRV if I disagreed. I figured it was at least worth stowing away until it could be improved or more good sourcing emerged (although I find the sourcing that already exists is plenty to establish notability).

Oh well. I wouldn't spend too much time on it. There seems to be some kind of passionate ownership over the subject of wineries at work. A merge or even a redirect that preserved the history would be okay by me (although not as desirable as a restored article). The arguments that someone will simply recreate the article seem pretty silly. Since when do we delete or salt things just so no one can restore something down the road?

Anyway, I did enjoy reading your blog. There are some pretty crazy decisions here, but whatever. :) Take care. Happy New Year. Oh and your arguments make sense, but ultimately it will be decided how it's decided. The discussion is getting to be too long to read, again, which looks like a good indication of no consensus to me, but what do I know. There are a lot of egos at work on Wikipedia and pride seems to get in the way of commons sense sometimes. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia and to feature article subjects that are lost in the shuffle. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYT

I appreciate your edits to the article, but you should know that another users has substantially modified your version and you might want to take another look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nassau Valley Vineyards

Updated DYK query On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nassau Valley Vineyards, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't

Comparing PRODing unsourced BLPs to book burning is not a great idea. UnitAnode 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the EXACT same thing as book burning, the question is whether and when its ever justified. This deletion blitz is pathetic! 95% of BLPs present no problems, and some are using a jackhammer to correct it.--Milowent (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.

This barnstar is awarded to Milowent for his courageous saving of several articles which were disruptively deleted. You are a real asset to the project. Ikip 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Make sure to give other editors who have saved articles this barnstar: 

{{subst:The Rescue Barnstar 3|message ~~~~}}

The Olympic Frank Andersson ‎ (45 revisions restored: an olympic medallist for fuck's sake) was priceless. I will either add it to my talk page, or even make it into a signature. Thank you. Ikip 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like it: Ikip >Frank Andersson 45 revisions restored:>an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to do the same, here is how I did it: User:Ikip/sig and, add {{Subst:User:ikip/sig}} to preferences, signature. Ikip >Frank Andersson 45 revisions restored:>an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, it doesnt work well. Ikip >Frank Andersson 45 revisions restored:>an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your book burning statement. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Journalists User:Wageless the columnist in the NYTRB, agrees.
"likened the organized deleters to book burners"
PCPRO: "It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire" Ikip 10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Blum

Hi, I've restored David Blum and created a central place for similar restoration requests at WP:SJR ϢereSpielChequers 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sourcing (and improvement in this case) is underway.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Cathy Greene, John Bucklaschuk, and Elly Dekker. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Greene

Yes, I created that article. I have that book in the other room. I'm an editor of a magazine IRL so I don't know when I can get it to you, but I will try by the end of the week! Mike H. Fierce! 09:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you and sorry for doubting

Several entries above is my request for your opinion on an article. I did not see that you had commented on it within its talk pages, and in a subsequent conversation I stated how "you never responded to my inquiry". I apologize for that, sorry for doubting you, and thank you for your advice. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

civility

How does this comment further Wikipedia's commitment to civility? tedder (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Gran Torino (film). But I appreciate the raised eyebrow and will cease and desist.--Milowent (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David M. Malone

Thanks for your comment. I have almost, almost forgotten the thirst for blood you displayed in the discussion over exploding sheep. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing of articles: Slobodan Lalović

Adding references to reliable sources, such as mainstream news services or government databases, is very valuable and important work. I was surprised the Google translate worked well enough Serbian to English to allow me to confirm sourcing of the one article for which I removed the "unsourced" tag. So if you have added multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of a BLP, the notability of the subject is confirmed. Even one such source should justify removing the "unsourced" tag. Naturally someone's personal blog, IMDB, or Myspace would not be enough.I am also going over the category "unsourced BLP" starting with the oldest, and attempting to source them or to remove "unsourced" tags if someone else has added good references, since there is a move afoot to robodelete old unsourced BLPs. That will actually improve the encyclopedia by removing some vanity articles which lack any reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, and which fail both verifiability and notability. Great work! Edison (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad bad milowent

A note about civility

Please be careful to be civil to people whose actions you disagree with, such as User:Unitanode. In other words, don't call him Unitatroll, even when he starts an AfD that you disagree with. I encounter lots of AfDs that should never have been started, and I prefer to deal with them by adding "Keep. I added some references." rather than by name-calling. Please continue your good work finding and adding sources, but don't get yourself blocked for incivility. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note and surely good advice. User:Unitanode dishes it out liberally, so hopefully he can take a little ribbing himself. Maybe I should go out and delete 500 articles, and the wikigods will praise me.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is often better not to comment on another editors inadequacies. Your retorts can be misunderstood and easily used against you. If not now, maybe in the future. Speaking ones mind can escalate and detonate banter →→into expletives →→into on-going hostilities. Your future seems bright. Don't litter it with sediment.--Buster7 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. 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. If you persist in your personal attacks against me, as you did here, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This type of thing is completely unacceptable. UnitAnode 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I love the use of the NPA template, Unitanode.--Milowent (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. As long as you refrain from your juvenile name-calling. UnitAnode 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have our differences, but...

That is a great tag to be able to use. How does it function, as far as pulling the "earlier version" diff and all that? I'd like to be able to use it as a tool when I do stub a poorly-sourced article. Regards, UnitAnode 02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, you have to find the diff# you want to add to the tag, but that isn't too hard. --I first became aware of it at: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#My_solution. I think it would be great if you used it more, and maybe we have some common ground there.--Milowent (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might've figured it out. It's not actually a diff, but an old version number that is plugged into the template. I think this would really help both newer editors that aren't sure exactly how to use the history, as well as older editors who just want an easy way to find the information they're trying to source. Thanks! UnitAnode 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let both of you know, the template's meant to go on the talk page, not the article page. I need to add some "nag" code to the template that says as much. If the documentation isn't clear, let me know, I'll rewrite it.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I did not know that, as it works so well (for my line of thinking) on the articles themselves.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are merits to both placements, but I ultimately decided the talk page was the more suitable location. One reason is that if we're actually trying to "hide" potentially harmful information, it's kind of dumb to say "click here to see all the removed stuff!" right at the top of the article. Another is that if it's left on the article page, it might linger for years and years, and eventually someone will remove it because of the first reason. It's meant to be for the benefit of editors, not readers, and editors will know (or learn) where to find it on the talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza del Lago

Moved to: Talk:Plaza_del_Lago to encourage more participants.--Milowent (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

Hello Milowent

As one of the most active editors on Article Rescue Squadron, I wanted to ask you what you thought of this modified template for the project. Please share your opinion at: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Modified_template Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was reverted, but now it has been restored by another editor, thanks for your hard work :). Okip (formerly Ikip) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solved

According to the atticle given, it was the day before 2007-09-20 （从昨天起，）, so it should be 2007-09-19 when the name was changed.David290 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14#User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava

Hi, Milowent. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11#Ambarish Srivastava, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14#User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Ask your friends to choose their flag, and join the contest
Peregrine Fisher
File:John Doe avatar.jpg
Congratulations in becoming a contestant in the

Unreferenced Biographies of
Living Persons Contest

File:Yulia Tymoshenko (27 April 2009).jpg

You will be given further instructions soon.

Questions? Good luck!

Okip BLP Contest 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Help on the contest

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I know you are very supportive, but it is so wonderful to remember this when I am being so severely criticized, I am in your debt :)

If you care to take an active role on the contest, including taking it over, be my guest. I have been a rather polarizing figure and I think that my participation only hurts the potential for the contest.

Okip BLP Contest 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have to run the contest!!!! Remember you really are NOT a polarizing figure. You are only polarizing to a very small number of the most active wikipedia editors, and a very very very small fraction of casual+active editors. I remember seeing a comment that 201 people commented on the first round of the BLP RfC, that's a drop in a bucket.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Ponyo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Jasper Mall

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jasper Mall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper Mall. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. and FYI, note the original editor's user talk page. Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page) 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Tckma's talk page.
Message added 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tckma (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okeefy

  • Thanks for the heads up. I really appreciate it. I was under the impression that ALL editors were either far right Nazi types, or conciliatory Liberals --more interested in peace than truth.

You seem fair minded. I made a complaint against Chelydramat and MudskippermarkII--but would like to know (as I am a Wiki novice) did I take it to the right place? And how long before we see some action? The edit of the Gay Village page by MudskippermarkII should have been the end of it. Why has he been (so far) let off the hook for obviously intentional vandalism? I'm incredulous. If Wiki had called him on that, we wouldn't be dealing --at least with the same computer--now. Just curious if you know.... Thanks, again for restoring a little of my faith in Wiki. Big Orange (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC) (Smiles.) Big Orange (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note, Big Orange. ahhh, the place to make complaints like this would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but that can be a real dramapit and difficult for a novice to get relief at unless the violations are blatant, so read some other disputes there to get a sense for how it works. Typical edit disputes end up with admins telling everyone to calm down and just take up your time. I dug up your comment at that other board (which board I have never seen, and I don't know what it does really)("MudskippermarkII, and Chelydramat have been deleting sourced material (including AP stories) and inserting information that they (demonstrably) know to be lies into talk pages (see James O'Keefe entry). MudskippermarkII, in particular was "outed" as having defacing the entry on Gay Village in a way that should insure that she/he is blocked--not just by name, but computer ID. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_village&diff=prev&oldid=335669770 ). People often try to insert slanted materials into hot topic controversial bios (see, e.g., Glenn Beck's article history), they usually go away if others are vigilant during the hot time period.--Milowent (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between being "vigilant," as you say, and edit war? I was threatened by a number of folks about vowing to resubmit the AP citation/link RE: Okeefy's home confinement. Am I right that those removing a valid link were more at fault than I? (I was afraid to push it...but would love to put it back in...as I think it IS as newsworthy as Madoff's confinement prior to a guilty disposition. Am I right? Or wrong? And, uh...if so, do you want to put it back--so that it's not me again? That policy confuses me. I may be Liberal...but I consider myself a good enough Philosopher to be able to argue both sides of an issue--in an article (*discussion being different) without tipping my hand to an outsider. (And again, thanks.) Big Orange (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? You tell me! I just try to fend for myself assuming that getting admin intervention is difficult. As for the home confinement, I was fine with it being reported (not in the lede, but in the relevant section), but not making it silly like the original TPM and HuffPo posts did. Remember, O'Keefe is only a celebrity on FoxNews and internet blogs, he's a magnet for drama.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Lodge

Because it looked like the same text was there twice. Like someone copy-pasted it cluelessly, leaving behind [1]s and [2]s instead of actual references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I note the same regular suspects put this up for deletion, typically ignoring WP:BEFORE. *sigh*

The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.

This barnstar is awarded to Milowent for his work in saving Hitlerszalonna. Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like you. Okip 06:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered giving you a barnstar for your good efforts in this respect also, so I'm glad to see someone who isn't as lazy and self-centered as I am actually followed up. :) Good on you. And I enjoyed reading your blog. I'd like to know when there are new posts if that's possible, but I don't quite know how that would work or if you'd be comfortable dropping by a reminder. Anyway, take care of yourself and enjoy spring. The article still needs some sourcing work. I asked one Hungarian speaker to have a look, but notifying a couple others might help... Do we draw straws to see who gets to do it? Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CoM (and that Okip guy too :-) ) -- I joined the hungarian wikipedia and posted on the talk page of "Zimmy" (he also has an account here) who contributed to the short discussion they had on Hitlerszalonna in 2008 on a talk page, hopefully he'll come by at some point. As for the blog[8], its very irregular posting, but I would be happy to let you know when its updated.--Milowent (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

Habari is a bit of a special case. i am responsible for all four AfDs for it. after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) was closed with a keep i concluded that AfDs are a joke. WP:DEL says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. WP:NOTVOTE elaborates. so what does the closing admin do in the second nomination? they do a straight up head count. three votes to keep, none of which are based in wikipedia policy. if the arguments presented in that AfD are to be believed - the arguments that resulted in a "keep" closure - then all non notable articles must be deleted simultaneously (regardless of how mammoth a task that would be) or none should be deleted, unreliable sources can be cited as justification for keeping an article (even if they couldn't actually be cited in the article per WP:RS) and some random award given away by sourceforge.net deserves its own wikipedia article because it's as notable as the Academy Awards (although i guess someone forgot to inform the tv executives of this since they don't air sourceforge.net awards on primetime tv). or maybe the lesson to learn is that if User:tusho thinks an articles subject is notable it obviously must be.

i initiated a deletion review and all the administrators that commented closed ranks in one of the worst demonstrates of rank and file i have ever seen on wikipedia. they said that the closing admin made the right call per WP:DEL but when confronted with statements from WP:DEL that contradicted them and that should have proved once and for all that the AfD should have been over turned all i got was silence. the wikipedia power structure is little more than a good 'ol boy network - a cabal if you will - and the more vehemently wikipedia denies it with things like WP:TINC the more wikipedia proves it exists.

maybe i would be more respectful in AfDs if the wikipedia power structure respected the rules and policies they created but since they do not neither do i. Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i like your attitude. i would be willing to dismiss Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) as a fluke too were it not for the DRV outcome. everyone makes mistakes and every organization has there bad apples but in the DRV wikipedia defending there mistakes or bad apples. maybe i should let it go - i do think every other AfD i have participated in was reasonably decided based on the comments. i may not think that a lone WSJ citation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Dubose is enough to merit being called notable but the consensus of the AfD was that it was. i might renominate that one at some point in the future - or others - as consensus can change but i do not believe that in those the admin did simple vote counting. maybe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) upsets me so because its primary defender persisted in making such awful arguments. maybe i would have less of a problem with it if they had simply said I like it and left it at that. or maybe not - i do not know. Misterdiscreet (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Milowent!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Shaker

So I really thought the rescue or citation barnstars would be appropriate since you saved saved an article for finding seemingly unattainable sources. But you already have those and this was an aricle on a prominent building that defines the skyline of a city. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Architecture Award
For somehow finding the sources to save the Sugar Shaker article. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VDM

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Kasaalan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Kasaalan (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bikini Barista

Updated DYK query On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bikini Barista, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI fun

Thought you might be interested in this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton. I only stumbled across it because it made an AFD cleanup report that I monitor, and a third AFD nom is a little suspicious. tedder (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I am pretty darn sure its the same guy, his behavior and argument style are identical. I tried to engage him in good faith on the article talk page, but he wasn't interested in that.--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura Freeway discussion you might want to get in on

Hello! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.

Here's the background: The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". Someone else reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are talking about a delete-and-merge again. Since you took part in the original discussion, I thought you might want to have some input at the relocated discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later: never mind, I see you are already there! --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

Hey Milowent, please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards--I made a weird, weird mistake in a small revision I made to the article, and your keep may be affected by that mistake. Explanation found at AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Segregated prom

Updated DYK query On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Segregated prom, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! And (erm) blows my mention of prostitution in a DYK out of the water- it was under 8k. tedder (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky prods

Hi Milowent'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Green

Heh, yeah, I made the article a while ago. I wanted to make it before any of the other fans got to it. The Vlogbrothers are amazing and I idolize them. SilverserenC 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?

Hey Milowent. I did grow up in the area, and return frequently, but the name isn't ringing a bell. Didn't you say that you have contacts in Fulton yourself? I'm not sure what you mean by "strong personal attachment to the controversy!" but it doesn't sound benign. This is the second time you've hinted that I may be personally involved in the topic at hand, so I hope you aren't trying to make an underhanded swipe at my credibility. I'm going assume that you're shocked to see your comments could be construed that way and let the matter rest.

If you aren't, there are proper channels for COI issues, and I invite you to use them rather than to try to undermine my credibility.

Geogene (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Fulton, I just sense that you are defending the area because you may be from there. I didn't intend to suggest you are really on the prom committee or something. Sorry bout that.--Milowent (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But if I were the principal or the prom committee the girls would have gotten their tickets and you would have never heard of Fulton. Both bigotry and stupidity on the part of the adults were required to create this situation, and the ACLU was trolling for a few years before they found enough of both in Itawamba County for their test case. I don't deny that, that facts are irrefutable. I'd like to see a dignified, well-written article, not a whitewash, nor an attack piece. If I am hopelessly COI, well there are plenty of other editors that will more than balance me out. I'll see if I can be a bit less aggressive for a while. Geogene (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kresimir Chris Kunej

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kresimir Chris Kunej, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir_Chris_Kunej_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wulf Zednik

Done, though if there are actual sources to support a proper article, it might be worth adding them to the article — because as currently written, the article demonstrates no actual notability whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it. Thanks.--Milowent (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate AFDs

Just in case you want it for reference: User:Dismas/AFD. Dismas|(talk) 04:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Milowent (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rescue From Deletion Award

The Rescue From Deletion Barnstar
In recognition of your posts which may have saved several Playboy Playmate articles tonight. --Morenooso (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta jam but watch my latest vote. It will rock your socks!!! --Morenooso (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Milowent, I'd be interested in any counter arguments you may have on the Boba_Phat AfD. You had asked me to expand upon my thoughts as to why it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I'd love to continue the discussion, if you open to it. However, I completely understand if you are through with the discussion. It has been a difficult scenario all round for everyone. Hope to hear from you soon. Biohazard388 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will, perhaps I won't. The topic of the AfD is sublimely inane, so it may draw me back. I did read your comment and saw it as a slippery slope kinda thing but may chew on it more before responding.--Milowent (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Please reframe from further biting new editors and attacking them simply for being new accounts as you have at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination). You also need to assume good faith on the part of editors participating in the AfD discussion. —Farix (t | c) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nilson

This is not a wikipedia reliable source http://www.theinsider.com/news/533981_Who_The_Heck_Is_Sandra_Nilsson Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ani

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Art

There is a lot more specific information over at Jimbo's page on Commons. As is mentioned there, this is one example of a piece of art by a notable artist. I have also heard mention that there was a picture of breastfeeding that was deleted. If I was an admin, I could be more specific, but the images I remembered in the categories deleted (such as the Sexual Content category) were most definitely not just pornography. SilverserenC 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few ill-advised deletions took place, so its good others are checking over Jimbo's acts. Like the Jan 2010 BLP purge, deletion discussions are better than unilateral deletions. Thanks for the information.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the deletion log for that piece of art, if you check, shows that Jimbo redeleted the image three times, after it was recreated by different admins (each time) who decided that it was artistic and thus didn't fit under the policy change for deletion. So much for what he stated he would do. SilverserenC 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's far from infallible, he must think that picture is dirty dirty dirty. I do know there were total porn stashes around wikipedia, not that I cared, but I guess wikimedia is worried about its corporate donors.--Milowent (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Birtherism

"Hey Truthful, you don't really personally believe in this neo-birthism silliness, do you? Its like the opposite side of the coin of Dan Rather and the fake National Guard memos"

I've made it quite clear I believe that Obama was likely born in Hawaii. As I defined neo-birtherism, it was the set of beliefs regarding whether he's hiding something in connection with his 1961 long-form Certificate of Live Birth (if it exists, as opposed to some other "vital record" such as an affidavit of a relative). In all the discussion of deletion, I didn't see a single one of my points actually addressed. You do find it remarkable the lengths that the networks, FactCheck and other mainstream outlets go to give the misimpression that the 2008 computer-generated form is the 1961 "original"? That Robert Gibbs, in mid-2009, said he didn't know the name of the hospital his boss was born in? That the hospital won't even confirm it? C'mon.

In the the Rather situation we were provided with documents (by a major network) which were forensically and conclusively proven to be fakes. With Obama, the contemporaneous authentic documents have been withheld. (I do not, btw, have much interest in the debate over whether the 2008 COLB posted online is authentic -- of course it is. That debate was originally started by Daily Kossers to distract from the real question regarding tbe existence of the 1961 certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Milowent&oldid=361523293"