User talk:Milo H Minderbinder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sockpuppetry
I most definitely plan to continue with investigation. Though perhaps you could assist in this matter. For example, your first edit was on October 20, yet you exhibited great familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. Can you please explain? Also, though I did mean to bring up the question of your account being new (which it obviously is), it was probably an overstatement to use the term "highly uncivil," and I do apologize. Statements of yours which I did have concerns about were things like, "Put up or shut up" [1], or accusing another editor of "making up their own rules" [2]. I also was not happy with your accusation that good faith objections were merely "stalling" [3], or your reference to "weasel words." [4]. As for sockpuppetry accusations, I am still convinced that there is sockpuppetry in the discussion, and I am preparing a CheckUser request, but the first one will be on some other accounts, not yours, as I am still trying to do what I can to assume good faith. If you could please explain why you, as a new user, have such a sudden and strong interest in matters of Wikipedia policy, I would be very interested.
I hope that helps clarify things, --Elonka 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your polite and thorough reply, it does help to set my mind at ease (and is actually really refreshing!). Also, if I might make a suggestion, I would recommend creating a userpage when you have an opportunity? Having your name show up as a red link does have certain negative connotations within Wikipedia culture, but adding some info to your userpage, even if minor, will fix that right up. Thanks again, and if I have other concerns, I promise I will bring them up (and hope that you will do the same!), --Elonka 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Milo, your chronic incivility has actually gone way beyond a "put up or shut up". It includes the blatantly disrespectful "I'm glad you've finally admitted that you don't assume AGF, I haven't seen evidence that you ever have", directed at me. There are more that I could dig out, but I don't tend to feel much inclined to dialog with people who say things like that, because I've found that generally there's no convincing them anyway. -- PKtm 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC for Rrfayette
Hi. I have just filed a request for comments concerning Rrfayette (talk • contribs). Given that you were one of the editors most involved in the dispute surrounding WP:WEB, I would appreciate it if you could look at it and possibly comment on what is missing. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good question but frankly I have no idea. I have never filed an RfC before and frankly I hope I never have to again! My uneducated guess is that it is probably ok for you (at least right now) to add more stuff directly, especially since no one has endorsed the RfC yet (which might mean that no one has read it). Once people start signing the statement it probably gets trickier. I have also contacted an admin (Cryptic) to know whether or not it is ok for me to alert other people of this RfC (currently, I only asked you and Cryptic to weigh in). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My essay
Thanks for commenting. I happen to agree with everything you say, and I invite you to change my essay accordingly if you so desire. It's a Wiki, after all. Mr Spunky Toffee 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lostpedia
I'm responding to your question on your user page, since I pledged to no longer discuss it on the LostNav talk page. I do not believe the link necessarily needs to be on the LostNav, but I think there should be a link somewhere, I don't care where. If I were writing the article, I would add it as an external link, under the subhead "notable fansites." Alternatively, given that there is a wikipedia article about Lostpedia (which I don't think there should be), I would put a link to that article under a "See Also" section. However, my understanding is that the Navbox is sort of a replacement for a "see also" section, hence my arguing for its inclusion there. Tulane97 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shannon and Boone
whats your problem? i have nothing to do with the 17 or 16 or whatever episodes you re talking about. and i dont get it whats the problem of stating that shannon's one of the central characters in the episode. spoiled brat probably...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vozas (talk • contribs).
[edit] Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
[edit] Hello
Hi, could I please ask you to kindly stay the hell out of my business on Lostpedia, and that includes not going around to see what pages I may have created or edits I may have done. Thank you. --SilvaStorm
[edit] "Place to discuss events on another wiki"
No but as the user insisted it was only fair I answered the question, wasn't it? Then again as you know, the slightest mention of Lostpedia on Wikipedia seems to bring certain people out in terrible panics. --Plkrtn 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- He was just helping me out, okay, Minderbinder? You don't need to worry about it. --SilvaStorm
[edit] Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: LOST episode article titles
No, I saw that, and am confused as to why some articles for episodes of other TV shows have (**** episode) in the parenthesis, when Lost just has (Lost). If you ask me, it looks bad, and needs to be more specific. --SilvaStorm
- Well I'm not the only one - someone important - Elonka - also agrees with my moves, so you should talk to her about this as well. --SilvaStorm
- I'm sure there are a lot of other users who would beg to differ. --SilvaStorm
[edit] Talk:Heroes (TV series)
Thanks for removing the discussion under "According to my source and a close friend". That was the best way to the off-topic discussion. Primogen 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No it fucking wasn't and shouldn't have been removed. Stop encouraging mess.74.195.3.11 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:EL
I have reverted your changes. We don't achieve consensus this way on Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't go and change stuff. Solicit consensus, talk to people. You're being stubborn - that's why you've been reverted a few times already. - crz crztalk 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List
Please hold off on AfD'ing List of Heroes. I'm currently discussing it with its creator and we may be able to merge the two without sending it to deletion. You can weigh in at User talk:LeafGreen Ranger. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wait!!!!
LOL, I'm replacing yours! We don't need that all repeated everywhere. It will just confuse everyone, trust me. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded abrupt but I've done a lot of admin work at WP:RM. You'd be shocked how many people get confused at the simple procedure the way it is. If you start making Survey sections in more than one place, it will be total chaos. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).
|
[edit] Out of context
I believe that several of my comments have been taken out of context, or at least misunderstood. I never meant to imply a formal ruling on the validity of WP:TV-NAME, that's not my (nor MedCom's) place to do so. I understand that I said "does not reflect consensus", however I was not referring to the overall guideline, I was referring to the the recent batch of page moves, which obviously upset people. In addition, it occurred during an attempted mediation on the subject, which--whether they were with consensus or not--would obviously upset people involved, given the tensions on the subject. Finally, I did not say that all of the page moves should cease and desist permanently, I merely told Yaksha that she needed to stop because her actions were upsetting the potential mediation. I wasn't intending to offer a ruling on anything involved, I just told everyone involved that what was going on needed to stop, if mediation was to be successful. I feel this falls within my scope as a mediator.
I thank you for questioning it. It is important for the MedCom to remain neutral. ^demon[omg plz] 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Butt-head
The page needed to be moved, as the 'h' on 'head' is not capitalised. I tried to move it, but it didn't work. Doug has sorted it out now, though. --SilvaStorm
- Yep, Doug Bell (talk • contribs) took care of it. By the way, Help:Moving a page does mention why cut-and-paste moves are a bad idea: it says, "you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that." Looks like Doug explained that to Silva too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vote-stacking
If you're going to be throwing around accusations of vote-stacking, please be sure to be consistent about it. [5] --Elonka 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did the people he contacted have an edit history such that they would all be expected to agree with him? And I'd like to point out the contrast in tone between his notice (looks to be the same in the places he posted it) [6] and yours [7]: "Attack on The Wire episodes - FYI, there's a group of editors that are working their way through Wikipedia, disrupting category after category of television episodes." That doesn't sound like a neutral "notification". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
