User talk:Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived talk...back to User talk:Milo H Minderbinder

Contents

[edit] Bad faith

Hiya, thanks for your comment. I agree that a simple accusation of bad faith, when accompanied with examples, is not necessarily a personal attack. However, in that particular post, I saw no examples, and I would point out that Fenton has actually indicated his support of the Lostpedia article, so it made no sense to me to be attacking him for bad faith. In other words, he's agreeing with your side, why attack him? :) --Elonka 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, it's a very confusing discussion, I agree.  :/ Which is why I think it's even more important that civility guidelines be encouraged. I think that another concern that I had about the statement that I removed, was because it came from an anonymous editor, so it seemed particularly ironic that it was an accusation of bad faith. Also, in off-wiki discussions that I've been having about the matter, it seems that one reason that people are so against having a Lostpedia link, isn't just based on the notability of the site itself, but because they're just plain irritated with what they regard as rudeness from many of the self-admitted Lostpedia editors. :( As such, if you do have any pull with that community, it might be worth giving them the "Catch more flies with honey" speech. In fact, if some of them were to go in and remove anything that might be even remotely regarded as a personal attack or uncivil comment, you might see more of the "Delete" !votes switching. Civility is a big deal on Wikipedia.  :) --Elonka 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hi - I saw your username and had to ask, being a fan of Heller's Catch-22: was Milo's middle initial H? --Badger151 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so. --Iron Chef 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "subterfuge and misrepresentations"

I wanted to let you know that I pointed the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination) to your comments calling the validity of that AfD and his judgement in closing it into question. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Classy move, Milo. Rather than debate the issue (which I agree would be pointless anyway), it's a great idea to try to stir up some more trouble for the opposition. Sorry to be rude, but as with at least one other Lostpedian, I'm no longer able to AGF, because of exactly such moves as this.

As for "subterfuge and misrepresentations", I totally stand by those characterizations, as applied to the whole prolonged, multi-pronged Lostpedian struggle to get a link to your site on Wikipedia. The specifics are all covered, in detail, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination), with all the related links to the Fansites discussion, the previous AfDs, etc. Review those, in detail, and you'll see all the evidence that I'm not going to bother to gather and bring to your attention again. See you around. -- PKtm 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother with supplying pointless diffs, Milo, because I've already cited my evidence, and I'm tired of the Lostpedian filibustering that simply tries to wear people down. Not to mention putting words in their mouths, such as claiming misquoting on a verbatim quote (with the idea that repeating a falsehood enough times will convince people). As I said, see you around. This will be my last message to you. -- PKtm 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL conversation

Thank Milo, I appreciate it (and I'm sure the others using the page do too!). I looked the conversation over and there isn't a clear place where I could "break" it to move the off-topic stuff without just confusing things more, so I've decided to just leave it as is. I hope that if anyone wants to continue it that they'll do so on one of your three Talk pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NC/TV

Yeah, it was a tyop. I've corrected it. >Radiant< 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

"I'd recommend using a signature that has your username instead of a completely different name, it's confusing and potentially misleading. For reference, you can see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG"

I will go and reread those, and then make my decision. Thank you.

I'd also recommend using the "show preview" button before posting, I've noticed you often edit a page then immediately follow it with multiple fixes.

This is a matter of personal preference and habit, perhaps not the best habit, but nevertheless, they are my habits, and if I feel my methods are, in actuality, truely deterrent and detrimental to accomplishing a given goal, then I will rethink my ways; otherwise, I thank you for your opinions.

"it's recommended to leave others' comments on your talk page (or at least move them to an archive)."

They have been moved to an archive. You may see for yourself. SolelyFacts 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of this, and that is how Wikipedia works. You don't see them because they are not there. Spam on my user talk page is not permitted. What do you want? Want to argue with me? Are you so bore that you will not do something productive; instead, you opt to hassle me about every little thing? You don't even have a user page. If you wish to continue talking about this and any other concerns you made have, you are welcome to do so. I am always open for productive communication. SolelyFacts 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

What is your reason for reverting? Please reply on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)‎ so we can discuss. SolelyFacts 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I explained my revert in my edit summary. And please don't edit the header to this, you're not supposed to edit other people's comments on talk pages. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say I am "not supposed to edit the header"? It may be suggested, a guideline, not rule. Please tell me where to look. SolelyFacts 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. SolelyFacts 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[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] "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] 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)
I do not agree with your version. Please show me the old version you're referring to. - crz crztalk 17:37, 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)
And yes, please do double check. I'd be surprised if I didn't mess up a copy/paste somewhere... Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:28, 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).
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[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.

Respectfully, ^demon[omg plz] 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)
Milo, why don't you just submit it as evidence to ArbCom and let them sort it out? Trying to convince Elonka that she engaged in vote stacking seems pointless. – Anþony  talk  21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The original shortcut hasn't been changed

I've replied to your concerns on my talk page. The Transhumanist (AWB) 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hiya, I'm actually having hopes that we're making progress in our discussion at the RfAr page, but I'm a bit concerned that that spot isn't really the proper place to be talking. As such, I invite you to a section I've set up at User talk:Elonka/NC summary#Milo H Minderbinder's comments, where we can talk one-on-one? --Elonka 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I often find that in a dispute, especially where there are multiple people involved in a public forum, that sometimes the best chance of de-escalation is to have some private one-on-one chats between the primary parties. Do you ever use an IM client? I'd welcome the opportunity to talk to you directly. --Elonka 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, to keep things on the record, how about we chat, and then post the transcript of the IM conversation? Or, we could meet in an IRC chat room? --Elonka 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The OC

Duely noted :). JoshHolloway 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos and salutations

Hi Milo,

I know we've had some disagreements in the past, but after reading some of the ongoing controversies you've gotten drawn into, I wanted to drop you a note to say how impressed I am with your quick-study on Wikipedia policy; and how you've been brave enough to jump into the fray of discussing such policy, even under (to put it mildly) stressful conditions. So kudos, Milo: here's hoping you stick 'round to help improve Wikipedia with your perspective.

Best, LeflymanTalk 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. On an unrelated note, I finally came across an old guideline which I think explains the past controversy we had over edits to an AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maintenance. I think the guideline has been orphaned, or at least not been noticed in quite a while, and could do with some review/updating. (It still uses outdated terminology of "VfD", the prior name for "AfD".) --LeflymanTalk 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desperate Housewives

I saw an edit you made on the Desperate Housewives page asking why it said there were 24 episodes on season 2. I'm not the one who added that, but I do know the answer--the 2-hour season 2 finale was divided into 2 episodes on the DVD, so there were the 23 episodes plus that extra hour. And you asked if they announced how many season 3 episodes there will be. There will be 24 episodes total. Season 3 will also have a 2-hour season finale. Just thought I'd let ya know about that :-) Cheater1908 02:13, 4 January 2007 (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

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
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] 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] I'd just like you to know...

...that you have an awesome username. That's really all. Thanks for your time. Axem Titanium 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh Holiest art Thou

I would just like to express my gratitude to you for being a level-headed and sensible individual. It seems that we have some childish and immature contributers amongst us, and I just felt the need to show you praise for being a calm and logical individual. You have certainly displayed a great level of common sense and have made it easier for me during our mutual discussions.  Anticrash  talk  23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep Up

Be a little more observant please. Actually work out what as been going on before you take the sanctimonious attitude. Michaelsanders 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. Michaelsanders 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). John Reaves 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below". Repeated changes to an unacceptable spelling, despite warnings to the contrary, is, in my book, vandalism. Michaelsanders 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we'll let the admins decide. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You do that. Just remember: 1)There is nothing at all in the 3RR policy regarding reversions to correct data 2)Editors are encouraged to remove false data. 3)Vandalism has to be removed. 4)I have been rude, and have apologised. You are being threatening, and have not apologised.

Have fun. Michaelsanders 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Those were different reverts. The first two were to the previous version of 9/1. I then made a substantial rewrite of the article (which is not a revert). I reverted back to that 3 times. I have not exceeded 3RR. Michaelsanders 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catch-22

Wikipedia is a Catch-22 (We can do anything you can't stop us from doing). Yes, Milo I read too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.140.196 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear Milo, Turn to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and stop the propogration of all of these wiki-lies!

A irrelevant comment.--St.daniel 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Your username renders the circular nature of the debate at Talk:Barrington Hall particuarly ironic, no? MastCell 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of irony there. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

I really would prefer not to have to make an ANI report about you, so I am going to ask you very plainly not to blank the section you keep blanking again. Even amongst those who "agree" with you, there was established consensus to leave the section with fact tags while the source was being discussed, and there is established consensus that one of the items is not disputed at all. Note also that J. Smith does not appear to dispute the validity of the source now (although I had to remove his comment). Escalating from fact tagging the section to deleting it during discussion appears especially unhelpful, I think. Deleting the whole section again without discussion after new information was provided appears equally unhelpful.-Cindery 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy, anonymity, and WP:BLP

I advise you to read the WP:RS discussion about this, which links to the ANI discussion about this. At no time are you even permitted to speculate about whom I might be, or what relationship I have to a notable person. You can directly quote me, that's all.-Cindery 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery removed your comment from ANI citing BLP. I have reverted her but perhaps you might consider reviewing your comment in the light of her unhappiness. --Spartaz 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Milo, you need to write your comments sans speculation about who I am or whom I am "in contact" with--you may quote me, that is all. That means you probably need to read the discissions, if you want to use a quote. I think iwould also be helpful for you to discuss why you blanked the section after 1) there was agreement even among disputanst to leave it with fact tags 2) why you blanked it after J. Smith did not object to the identity verification of the source, which was the issue.-Cindery 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

The administrators noticeboard is not the place to settle disputes. Please see resolving disputes for how to do that. However, there are merits to be found in the issues you have raised, and they will be taken under consideration. Steve block Talk 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to keep an eye on things, but you really need to let this go now. Steve block Talk 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Some people make a specialty out of provoking others, as a means of thinning/distracting the opposing ranks in a content dispute. But it appears as if there's an admin on the case, and continuing the dispute is only going to drag you down to others' level. Easier to preach than practice, I know. MastCell 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you should consider filing an RFC on Cindery. I'm certainly open to co-signing. Steve block Talk 12:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ping, are you willing to co-sign an rfc? Steve block Talk 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message Boards

Hi, I couldn't figure out how to start a discussion about an issue I had, but how is my community message board bad? I am not running it for commercial purposes. Its sole purpose is to start some community discussions in the area. I love to post messages on forums and I thought it would be a good idea for individual cities to have their own discussion group. I wasn't spamming, I was just trying to get my links out so that people knew about the site. My intentions are harmless; I just want people to be able to have discussions about their local community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Message Boards 2

So, there is no way I could add the link? I just want people to discuss the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:71.57.0.70

Feel free to email me if you have any further difficulties with them. I would be happy to assist you. Regards, alphachimp 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a new log-in and have been unblocked as long as I refrain from 'you know what.' I would appreciate if we could come to agreement on allowing some of the external links that I have placed in Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL).

First of all: my 'spammy links' are not the only contributions that I have made to Wikipedia. I stopped using my original user name for a couple of good reasons. I contributed to those articles (2) under the former user name. Secondly, I hate spam, so when you accuse my links of being spam, lets just say you cause the release of a few catecholamines, dilate my pupils, increase my heart rate ... OK let's stop their before I get accused of 'you know what.'

Now let me ask you why you categorized my links as spam? The Wikipedia Spam (electronic) Article and Forum spam probably define the spam that you are trying to fight as follows: That would be entries that try to increase search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as weightloss, pharmaceuticals, gambling, pornography, real estate or loans, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites.

[Arlingtoncards.com] is a website about Arlington Heights, Illinois as a community and about the closed high school formerly known as Arlington High School. There are affiliate and banner ads placed on some of these pages, but if you thoroughly look at the site you will notice that the high school content has minimal ad placement. There are ads on the site, I agree. That is how the expenses for the site are covered. Any reasonable person can view the site and see that it is not a spam site trying to promote viagra, diet pills, pharmaceuticals or gambling. Oh, but guess what? There is a horse race track in town, so I take that back there is a page on horse racing and gambling -- [Arlingtoncards.com/horseracing] and [Arlingtoncards.com/gambling]. FYI ... I never linked to those pages from Wikipedia.

We can put this to bed if you let me link to [Arlingtoncards.com] on Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL). I think I am also justified by including a few deep links on the high school page related to homecoming and archives for the years that the high school was open. By the way, you eliminated the Arlingtoncards.com links on the Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) article but you left the external link to [Illinois High School Glory Days ...]. Some of the content and all photos on his article on Arlington High School were given with permission from the Arlingtoncards.com site. He has an excellent website. Both [Illinois High School Glory Days ...] and [Arlingtoncards.com] have been positively reviewed in the Daily Herald.

Next time you start deleting links or taking any action, please think about my motto: 'Don't hurt innocent people.'


--T54 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)T54

[edit] Primatech

Why would you revert a link to an article that doesn't exist? It is common practice on wikipedia to link to articles that are likely to exist in the future. --Measure 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Hi MHM -- I would like to continue the COI discussion. Do please respond on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes edits

Milo, I'd appreciate it if you just...trust me. Trust my judgement and don't systematically revert my edits because they don't meet some arbitrary criteria. Believe it or not, I'm generally just trying to help, and what I do "without reason" now, will always make sense in the end. That's it. No need to reply. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI edits

Hi Milo -- please let us drop the metaargument and continue the discussion of COI on the talk page. If you do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, but since you and I are the only people involved in this particular debate right now, I will edit if you do not continue to engage. Sdedeo (tips) 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed

Woops. Sorry, I was going to report him this morning but I asked him to stop on the talk page. I didn't notice you'd reported him already, hehe :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it best if I merged my comment into your 3RR report so there isn't a dupe, so I did it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

That box you added at the top of the article is really a good idea. Hopefully people won't continue readd the information. I'm totally fed up with having to revert everytime. Wonder how I didn't think of something like that earlier. Cool! – PeaceNT 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I bet we still get people trying to add it again anyway. Hopefully it shouldn't have to stay up too long. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notability" reverts

Please consider going to the talk page as opposed to doing blind reverts that do not meet consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • ...says the person responsible for most of the blind reverts. Very ironic. Anyway, Milo, the reason I'm on your talk page is that you asked about deleting that disputedtag tag (and its cousin, a disputedsection tag). I tend to agree with you in that they're mostly used for the now-well-known style of reasoning that "I don't like it, therefore there is a dispute". But it does have the occasional productive use, and it was on TFD in the past and got kept. Perhaps we should reword it, or make a clear statement when the tag is or is not appropriate? >Radiant< 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd totally be up for tweaking the tag or the information that goes along with it. I'll put both on my watchlists and take a look. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain the consensus you claim exists on the talk page to the revert you just made? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: copyvio tagging

Good morning. I agree that it would be nice to have been able to tag the copyvio content instead of merely blanking it. Unfortunately, the primary copyvio tag I usually use is {{copyvio}} which is specificially worded for the scenario where the copyvio is a direct copy of some other site. It doesn't apply to this situation (excessive use such that the content no longer qualifies under fair use) and I'm afraid that adding the tag would have created more confusion than clarity.

I do know of several templates that work for non-fair use for images but none for text. If you can point me to such a tag, I will gladly start using it.

And if you can't find an appropriate template either, maybe we should draft one. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not a copyright expert, which is why I'd try and get others involved. If long plot summaries are truly a copyright risk, it would make sense to have a new template to flag that. Otherwise, you could always solicit additional opinions at the copyright talk page, the WAF page or elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr response edits

Hiya, I was wondering why my minor editing for language didn't take, until I had the bright idea of checking the history of the 3rr page. Might I ask why you removed my edits to correct my own grammar, speling and emphasis?Arcayne 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I didn't do it on purpose, looks like an edit conflict but I'm not sure why it overwrote your version instead of telling me about the edit conflict. Sorry about that. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed g2s

Here ya go. That post and the one right below it.--WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the page. When I see people talking through edit summaries and not on the talk page, it's time to protect. Otherwise, what'll happen is that even if Ed gets blocked, the war will probably continue when he returns. Need to try to get everyone to agree. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. FYI, those warnings were from those filing the 3RR report, not a result of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed any images. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: [8]. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a redlink - the image has been deleted, check the history before making assumptions of bad faith. ed g2s • talk 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
At the time you removed it from the article (12:21, 28 January 2007), there was an image there, not a redlink. The image was deleted later: 22:03, 7 February 2007. Could you quit making accusations of bad faith, not checking the history (which you're guilty of yourself) and such, and please answer the question? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

You are welcome to remove all of the references to the AA-EVP, me and the book my wife and I wrote. I have every intention to do all I can to keep the facts correct for EVP. Wikipedia is a public forum, and as such, there is a clear obligation that its contents be as correct as possible. So far, there has not been much evidence that you all are able to do that without oversight from someone who know what EVP is. Tom Butler 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to start an Arbcom case--the POV pushing and edit warring at that article are insane, as well as the continued insistence of the COI editor. Have you prepared one before, or been involved in one?-MsHyde 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Asked For An Example

Milo, in an earlier exchange we had on the COI Disscusion page you asked for an example of the COI circumstances I was talking about. The entire exchange is quoted below but immediately here was your question.

I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists.

I have an article in the AfD category. It is entitled Prometheus Process. It was created and worked on for about a month in good faith before the COI was raised. The COI is clear, acknowledged and I have not participated in the article since. During the initial COI/AfD round, I attempted to provide external references to show NPOV, verifiabilty, and notability. They essentially went ignored and un-acknowledged. In the second AfD round, I added information the the article talk page Talk:Prometheus Process to provide additional references about the article and its subject matter. It contains almost 60 independent links relative to the subject and also provides free access to other reference material.

Yet, this morning when I check out the status of the articles AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process, the only new entries are recommended deletes, where the rationale is Its all about the Contributor, not the contribution. with no acknowledgement or explanation that the information on the article's talk page doesn't support NPOV, Verifiability and notability. Since I cannot participate in the AfD discussion, I have no way to draw attention to the material on the articles talk page. I could engage the other participants directly, but once they've made their vote, they can easily just ignore any of my comments.

COI and AfD Guidelines Do Not Provide Level Playing Field For NPOV Just looking at one pair of statements in the current WP:COI and WP:AFD guidelines show how COI can be used very effectively to suppress NPOV discussions of any article. In WP:COI it says: avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors In WP:AFD it contains the statement: A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases. One only needs to raise a COI issue, force the article into the deletion category and the current guidelines eliminates any contribution by interested parties. In fact, the phrase "articles related" is so vague that COI can be raised easily with little merit. Once raised however, getting the article into the deletion process is easier because the the contributor and other interested parties with real or percieved COIs have been eliminated from any debate. The phrase "public debate and discussion" and "seriously contested" in the AFD guidelines may sound collaborative, but are not given the COI guidelines because the COI guidelines eliminate some of those in the public who might want to discuss, debate and contest the merits and deletion with facts, references and clarifications. This effectively suppresses any real debate of the NPOV of the article.--Mike Cline 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) If an article goes to AfD, involved parties shouldn't participate in the AfD discussion, it doesn't mean they can't still make comments on the article talk page. If people are biased against a company, they're probably more likely to keep an article and leave in negative information about the company. Are you aware of any cases where articles were deleted purely based on POV? Whether an article exists certainly shouldn't be decided by editors with COI, as far as I'm concerned, that's potentially worse than editing an article. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, my concern may actually be one of tactics, it is not that an involved party decides on the deletion, but merely contributes to the body of information used to evaluate the deletion decision. If indeed an involved party can freely, and without being labeled COI, identify all the relevant information neccessary to evaluate an article's notability, NPOV, etc. on article's discussion page before making recomendations to keep or delete the article AND those commenting on the AfD page have in good faith reviewed and continue to review all that relevant information on the discussion page, then "public debate and discussion on the merits of the article" has been allowed. However, should COI guidelines discourage even the hint of discussion by involved parties on the disscussion page or anywhere else for COI or any other reason and that deletion decision makers don't refer or review the articles discussion page during the deletion process, then the real public debate is stifled. It is really just too easy for someone involved in an AfD discussion to say "I can't find anything" relevant to this article, when they don't know where or how to look for it. They take one shot at it and that's it. The presence of a negative does not prove the positive. I hope you see my point.--Mike Cline 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I find it unlikely that in the case of an AfD, none of the editors participating, and no editor supporting keeping would either point to the talk page, or copy relevant information either into the article itself or the AfD discussion. This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - can you provide an example of this hypothetical problem actually happening? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, I must admit that I do not, in the least, understand what you just said. 1) DO or DO NOT editors, mediators and senior contributors participating in an AfD discussion review and refer to information on the disscusion pages of the articles under consideration? 2) If they do, is it evaluated from an NPOV perspective regardless of who contributed it?--Mike Cline 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Editors should do both. And if relevant info is posted on the article talk page, I think it's likely that an "uninvolved" editor will either point it out on the AfD or copy it there (or put it in the article if it's appropriate). I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, thanks I appreaciate your thoughts on this.--Mike Cline 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreaciate your thoughts on this. In good faith, all I desire is that the article's subject be included in Wikipedia because it can be written from an NPOV, it is notable and verifiable according to WP guidelines. If it is not, then I would like someone to point out why?

Thanks --Mike Cline 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your deletion vote on the Prometheus AfD page, especially the comment that most of the references were written by people who invented the term. Did you look at the references under the links section grouped under "Prometheus Process Related Case Studies". All that material is independent 3rd Party stuff, that I nor my company had any direct involvement in creating. Why are these types of references not suitable to show the notability of a widely used business process? I would think that independent articles partially crediting the award of the Baldridge National Quality Award to a specific Business Process would provide notability, but I may be wrong! Please address this for me.--Mike Cline 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverting Barrington Hall

Thanks for the reminder. I have not touched that article since yesterday and have no intention of getting into another pointless edit war with User:Hipocrite. Once consensus is established (if ever) we will work from there. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

It appears you're getting perilously close to RFA cliche #1 :) as such, perhaps you'd be interested in a nomination? >Radiant< 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliché 1? What's that? And are you talking about RfA RFA? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm very flattered, I wouldn't think there'd be any risk of mistaking a newbie like me for an admin. The idea of trying to become an admin interests me, but I feel like I don't have enough time and experience under my belt yet, particularly with writing articles. If in a few months you still see me plugging away and feel the same way, feel free to ask me again at that point. Thanks for the offer, it means a lot to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka

Comment from Elonka: Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version.
Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Creating a workshop version is a consideration. IMO, the article as it stands is a vestige of the Tom Butler-designed rewrite that occurred a few months ago when WikiProject Paranormal took on the article as a "collaboration of the month" project. At that time, a decision was made to write the article from a scientifically credible POV, using AA-EVP sources as citations. IMO, it went downhill from there. You are correct in assuming that the article may stand for some time as it is, due to a consensus of pro-EVP editors. However at some point, fresh eyes will arrive, note the POV problems, and the battle will begin anew.
Are there other articles about controversial fringe-science-paranormal topics that we can look to as a guide? Specifically I was thinking of Dowsing. There may be others. --- LuckyLouie 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at Bigfoot, Loch ness monster seems pretty good as well. Looking at the featured article list, the only one that comes close is Nostradamus. It uses phrases like "...his enthusiasts...credit him with predicting..." and prominiently mentions academic sources not supporting the idea that he had true predictions. I'm thinking the easiest way to start would maybe try and edit the intro so that it gives a better perspective - I tried moving the Status section into the intro but was reverted. A rewrite that includes that info would probably be better anyway. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following progress on this article for a while. That said, I don't expect to resolve its problems in a week. Or a month. It's sort of a long-term proposition. Taking frequent breaks helps. :-) OK, let's look at your proposed intro:

  • Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is the phenomenon of anomalous voices said to be of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.
  • While EVP has been studied, the publication of this research has been in journals specializing in the paranormal and other topics outside the mainstream. The concept has not been accepted by mainstream science. Critics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.
  • EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works.

Here I must represent the concerns of User:ScienceApologist who had very specific issues with the acceptance of EVP as a valid phenomenon. (He's on a Wikibreak, but he'll be back). If you look over the discussion from a few weeks ago, you'll see he has some very compelling arguments based on WP:FRINGE. Basically, what he was saying is that EVP is an "alleged" phenomenon. It is a "phenomenon" that is only recognized by its proponents. The vast majority of the scientific community do not recognize EVP as anything other than a belief. I tend to agree with that assessment. Therefore we must make it clear that it's an "alleged phenomenon that proponents say is X". So, a better opening might be:

*Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is said by proponents to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

--- LuckyLouie 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (although I'll bet that wording will have more opposition). Any other suggestions? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page features

You asked me earlier for the email of another user and I couldn't answer your question. I have since discovered the "Email this user" feature on the left hand sidebar beneath the "search box". Basically you go to a users page and, if they have email enabled, click "email this user" and Voila. Hope this helps. --- LuckyLouie 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP message

Thanks for your note. I hadn't seen that and have now reverted my edited and chimed in a little bit on the page in question. (Proposal 4, I think, offers the best way forward.) semper fictilis 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes; and the edits were pretty minor with no change in meaning. But they ended up with a different current text than the one being discussed in the sandbox, which could become counter-productive. Anyway, all the best, semper fictilis 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shannon

excuse me, could you just explain me why the hell don't you let people know that "hearts and minds" tells not only boone's but shannon's story? the truth is obviously stronger than a stupid consensus of three persons against one!! so stop ommiting information please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vozas (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Catch 22

Am I the first one to notice that your username is the same as a character in Catch 22? One of my top 10 books, by the way. Cla68 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're about the third...it's nice when people catch the reference instead of thinking it's "mindbender" or something like that. And yeah, great book. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I strongly considered using User:Hungry Joe before settling on my current username. MastCell 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think some of us choose the character from that book that we feel we identify with the most or that we find the most intresting or compelling. I identify most with Orr. I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with others in unexpected places. Once when I was walking down the street late one weekend night in Hachinohe, Japan about 11 years ago I started talking to a vendor from Israel selling jewelry on the street. Somehow the conversation drifted to Catch-22 and we discussed which character we most identified with. He said his was Milo. It was one of those random conversations with a stranger that stays in your memory. Cla68 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly note!

Just a friendly note about this entry, to say that if you really believe there is a COI there, then I would follow the WP:COI guideline on how to handle conflicts of interest. Anything else (such as the comments on Davkal's page, are borderline personal attacks, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It's much better to WP:AGF and avoid even the appearance of such an attack. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made no disparaging remarks or personal attacks, just pointed out the affilitation and potential COI that Tom has freely admitted to. I have also made no suggestions of dismissing or discrediting their views, simply pointed out that Tom's COI exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at John Edward

You have reverted the article John Edward three times in the last twenty four hours, please don't revert it again (and please don't revert war in general), you may be blocked per WP:3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly have not! My first edit of the tag was not a reversion, it was an edit. I have have reverted your edits twice. I suggest you take your own advice about 3RR. Don't leave any furhter bogus warnings on my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're attempting to add in the book cover edit, forget it - that's a single stand-alone reversion. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Take it to an administrator then. In the meantime keep your false warnings off my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I award you The Barnstar of Diligence

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I award you the Barns tar of Diligence for tireless pursuit of violations of Wikipedia policy. Including reporting those who violated the for theWP:3RR in the John Edward article. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
You deserve a Barnstar for your tireless attention and contributions to the Electronic voice phenomenon article. - LuckyLouie 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help?

I'm having a bit of trouble getting the Parapsychology article NPOV. Right now it's nothing more than a bias rant. Do you think you can spend some time helping me improve it? Wikidudeman (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a minute. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to do, but it's pretty pointless to delete almost the entire article to try to make it NPOV. Try something else. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I got it now. Okay, go ahead. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
All clear. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

This project seeks to help add neutrality and factual accuracy to all articles related to paranormal whatnot. Please join. Just add your name to the Project team.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Apparently you were correct about my having violated 3RR, according to some of the admins the first edit I made to remove the NPOV tag would have been a revert. Something I completely disagree with, but will abide by. So, I apologize to you for the comments I made and the attitude I displayed. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Maybe you missed it, but your removal of the tag wasn't taking it off after the mediation, but was reverting the re-addition of it (after someone else had already removed it per the mediation). Splitting hairs, I know, but still a revert of a fresh edit. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's splitting hairs a little too close for my comfort - and not something I would have done to another editor - but I must bow to the truth of the matter. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/User_talk%7EMinderbinder_Archive_Archive_1_afa7.html"