Talk:Milo Ventimiglia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of the Heroes WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Heroes. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Template
As I was asked to discuss the the template on the talk page, I will. It is not an accurate appraisal to say I should "keep my opinions to the talk page;" for one, an edit summary is meant for summarizing the reason for an edit, and I did so, and for two, my "opinion" is no more of an opinion than yours. The template is, indeed, superfluous in my opinion; this is being discussed on the template's talk page. Shannernanner 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- May I add that your comment about my "[respecting] other people's edits" is unconstructive; Wikipedia is a wiki, a note is placed right below the editing box which states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [bold in original]" Shannernanner 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
May I add that reversing a revision is only to be done in the case of vandalism and not to be taken lightly per Wikipedia policy. You are free to edit, but I and others want the template there, so don't rev, and be prepared to have us put it back the way it was. -Bansal 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I do not take reverting lightly, but neither is it to be done "only in the case of vandalism," which apparently you know as you reverted my edits. Not everyone wants the template, please see the relevant discussion. Shannernanner 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I only reverted because of your inappropriate use. When you properly edited my revisions, I responded with an edit. You may want to read through the page on reverting, it was clearly inappropriate in this case. -Bansal 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have read the page; I disagree. It is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to allow any edit to pass through which is not vandalism simply because it is not vandalism. If an edit does not edify the encyclopedia, it may be removed. I could call it something other than reverting, but to do so, in my opinion, is dishonest. Shannernanner 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is founded on the principle of respecting people's edits. You have an opinion that this template is superfluous (despite its popularity). If reverting an edit that has completely accurate information and solely for enforcing your opinion is not taking reverting lightly I don't know what is. Maybe you could give an example of what you think taking reverting lightly is, and how it differs from what you did. And I quote from the wikipedia page "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." and "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism" -Bansal 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It is founded on the principle that anyone can edit it, in the hope that it will be improved. Information that is accurate is not necessarily notable; in this case, it is redundant. As I said, please see the relevant discussion regarding this. Reverting something does not in and of itself make it reverting something a dispute; that's a circular argument. Shannernanner 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument does not address how using the revert procedure is in violation of what is stated on the page. I am not disputing your right to edit, I am disputing your use of revert, and as such it is not a circular argument. If you can't respond to my challenge and quotes from the wikipedia page in my previous comment I think you need to admit you are wrong, and hopefully will refrain from using revert improperly in the future. -Bansal 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this was a discussion about the usefulness of the template, not a "defense of my right to revert;" however, I did state why I reverted the edit above. ("It is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to allow any edit to pass through which is not vandalism simply because it is not vandalism. If an edit does not edify the encyclopedia, it may be removed. I could call it something other than reverting, but to do so, in my opinion, is dishonest.") If you want quoted text from the Help:Reverting page, it says, "[If possible, improve] the edit, rather than reverting it. [bold in original]" The change from the template to the original version is a minor one, as the information is redundant; I could have chosen also to check the "minor edit" box. It is, in my opinion, an improvement, but as I said, it would be dishonest not to also call it a reversion. Shannernanner 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well I am responding to your original comment about editing wikipedia. I will ask you one final time to respond to my challenge and the quotes from the wikipedia page, if not then you are admitting you are wrong by default, and I will keep an eye on your use of reverts. Whether you find it "dishonest" or not is irrelevant, it is in violation of what's on the page. Regarding the template, I'm not sure what you find so offensive about it. Multiple people have added it, so people find it useful. People are primarily interested in a person's birth date to compute their age, and that provides it easily for people. -Bansal 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- What original comment about editing Wikipedia? My comment regarding its purpose? I did respond to your "challenge and quotes" from the "Help:Reverting" page; you seem to be taking words out of my mouth, if that is possible. It is relevant what I call it, as a revert is a return to an earlier version of the page; if I revert someone's edit but just say "don't like how this is stated" it is contrary to process. With regard to the usefulness of the template itself, please see the relevant discussion. Shannernanner 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- "May I add that your comment about my "[respecting] other people's edits" is unconstructive; Wikipedia is a wiki, a note is placed right below the editing box which states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [bold in original]" This is the comment I am responding to. Also you have not said why what you did is not in violation of "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." and "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism", and have not provided any example, as requested. You have this opinion about dishonesty, but your opinion is in violation of what's on the page. Are you just incapable of admitting you're wrong? -Bansal 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that comment has to do with my comment that I thought this was a discussion of the usefulness of the template, but okay. I am not incapable of admitting I am wrong; that is a rather unuseful thing to say, I could say the same thing of you with the implication that you are intrinsically wrong. I did reply directly to those comments; as I said, the fact that I reverted it did not make it a dispute, the line is referring to ongoing disputes, otherwise all reverts would be disputes and that line would "outlaw" them all. Yes, reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, but also when content is irredeemable to the primary objective (cannot be edited to fit into the article). As this is a template, it obviously cannot be edited. I don't know what you mean by "providing an example." Shannernanner 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well if you were capable of admitting you're wrong you would've done it by now... :) You claimed you did not take reverts lightly, however I asked for an example of a revert that would be improper, and how that example differed from what you did. I guess according to your definition reverting is proper in any situation, but this is clearly not the case according to Wikipedia policy. In any case since you don't seem to want to provide the example, I guess we're done with this topic. I have moved discussion about the template to the talk page on the template, we can continue to discuss that there if you wish. Also I would remind you that this template has survived attempts to delete it, so you might want to consider respecting it. Have a good night... -Bansal 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by my seeming to imply that "reverting is proper in any situation;" if you mean if the situation demands it, yes, if you mean willy-nilly "I feel like reverting something right now," no. As I said, I don't know what you mean by "providing an example;" I cannot do so unless you tell me what you mean. It has survived one attempt to delete it, for the record. Shannernanner 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well if you were capable of admitting you're wrong you would've done it by now... :) You claimed you did not take reverts lightly, however I asked for an example of a revert that would be improper, and how that example differed from what you did. I guess according to your definition reverting is proper in any situation, but this is clearly not the case according to Wikipedia policy. In any case since you don't seem to want to provide the example, I guess we're done with this topic. I have moved discussion about the template to the talk page on the template, we can continue to discuss that there if you wish. Also I would remind you that this template has survived attempts to delete it, so you might want to consider respecting it. Have a good night... -Bansal 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that comment has to do with my comment that I thought this was a discussion of the usefulness of the template, but okay. I am not incapable of admitting I am wrong; that is a rather unuseful thing to say, I could say the same thing of you with the implication that you are intrinsically wrong. I did reply directly to those comments; as I said, the fact that I reverted it did not make it a dispute, the line is referring to ongoing disputes, otherwise all reverts would be disputes and that line would "outlaw" them all. Yes, reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, but also when content is irredeemable to the primary objective (cannot be edited to fit into the article). As this is a template, it obviously cannot be edited. I don't know what you mean by "providing an example." Shannernanner 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- "May I add that your comment about my "[respecting] other people's edits" is unconstructive; Wikipedia is a wiki, a note is placed right below the editing box which states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [bold in original]" This is the comment I am responding to. Also you have not said why what you did is not in violation of "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." and "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism", and have not provided any example, as requested. You have this opinion about dishonesty, but your opinion is in violation of what's on the page. Are you just incapable of admitting you're wrong? -Bansal 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- What original comment about editing Wikipedia? My comment regarding its purpose? I did respond to your "challenge and quotes" from the "Help:Reverting" page; you seem to be taking words out of my mouth, if that is possible. It is relevant what I call it, as a revert is a return to an earlier version of the page; if I revert someone's edit but just say "don't like how this is stated" it is contrary to process. With regard to the usefulness of the template itself, please see the relevant discussion. Shannernanner 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well I am responding to your original comment about editing wikipedia. I will ask you one final time to respond to my challenge and the quotes from the wikipedia page, if not then you are admitting you are wrong by default, and I will keep an eye on your use of reverts. Whether you find it "dishonest" or not is irrelevant, it is in violation of what's on the page. Regarding the template, I'm not sure what you find so offensive about it. Multiple people have added it, so people find it useful. People are primarily interested in a person's birth date to compute their age, and that provides it easily for people. -Bansal 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this was a discussion about the usefulness of the template, not a "defense of my right to revert;" however, I did state why I reverted the edit above. ("It is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to allow any edit to pass through which is not vandalism simply because it is not vandalism. If an edit does not edify the encyclopedia, it may be removed. I could call it something other than reverting, but to do so, in my opinion, is dishonest.") If you want quoted text from the Help:Reverting page, it says, "[If possible, improve] the edit, rather than reverting it. [bold in original]" The change from the template to the original version is a minor one, as the information is redundant; I could have chosen also to check the "minor edit" box. It is, in my opinion, an improvement, but as I said, it would be dishonest not to also call it a reversion. Shannernanner 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument does not address how using the revert procedure is in violation of what is stated on the page. I am not disputing your right to edit, I am disputing your use of revert, and as such it is not a circular argument. If you can't respond to my challenge and quotes from the wikipedia page in my previous comment I think you need to admit you are wrong, and hopefully will refrain from using revert improperly in the future. -Bansal 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is not. It is founded on the principle that anyone can edit it, in the hope that it will be improved. Information that is accurate is not necessarily notable; in this case, it is redundant. As I said, please see the relevant discussion regarding this. Reverting something does not in and of itself make it reverting something a dispute; that's a circular argument. Shannernanner 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is founded on the principle of respecting people's edits. You have an opinion that this template is superfluous (despite its popularity). If reverting an edit that has completely accurate information and solely for enforcing your opinion is not taking reverting lightly I don't know what is. Maybe you could give an example of what you think taking reverting lightly is, and how it differs from what you did. And I quote from the wikipedia page "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." and "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism" -Bansal 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have read the page; I disagree. It is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to allow any edit to pass through which is not vandalism simply because it is not vandalism. If an edit does not edify the encyclopedia, it may be removed. I could call it something other than reverting, but to do so, in my opinion, is dishonest. Shannernanner 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I only reverted because of your inappropriate use. When you properly edited my revisions, I responded with an edit. You may want to read through the page on reverting, it was clearly inappropriate in this case. -Bansal 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent site for all milo fans http://www.miloventimigliafan.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.23.217 (talk • contribs) 21:11, March 16, 2007
- Here's a link to his iBook commercial http://youtube.com/watch?v=6cNfRi1ZZfs130.13.109.73 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Ventimiglia" origin
Ventimiglia is a small town near Imperia, Italy, just before the frontier with French. The origin of the name is a mistake, in fact the town was named by the ancient ligurian peopole Intemelii and so "Albi Intimilium" by the ancient romans. During the next centuries "Albi Intimilium" changed to "Ventimiglia". It's a common mistake, here in Italy too, to belive Ventimiglia means 20 miles ("venti" is twenty and "miglia" is miles, in italian), but this is not the truly origin of the name. See your web page about Ventimiglia (town) in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventimiglia . I suppouse the forname of Milo Ventimiglia comes from the town, not from "20 miles".85.18.14.45 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relationship with Hayden Panettiere
It was recently reported in People magazine that he and Hayden (Claire from Heroes) were openly romantically involved. I don't usually do bio articles and so I don't know the level at which this becomes worthy of being included. If someone else wants to deal with this link/info, feel free. ju66l3r (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The Sun newspaper in the UK today published a column stating that they are now openly an item. Mabuska (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to put the relationship into the article, with citations to boot. It got pulled out by an anon IP saying "That is still just gossip. All the articles are recycling what People magazine said. People use weasel words and use an anonymous “family friend” as their source and that makes it a poor reference." Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Sun newspaper in the UK today published a column stating that they are now openly an item. Mabuska (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In magazines and stuff like that it has been said that Milo has finally admited to saying that he is dating Hayden (But they don't prove)anybody watch E! News, Because it's a good example of how they say one thing and just talk about and don't actually show anything to do with what they are talking about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.209.89 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of German Pants
Why is the note about him being given pants notable? Is there some kind of special subtext to him accepting or wearing these pants? 122.104.160.66 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alleged confirmation on BBC Radio 1 interview
I listened to this interview and I do not recall him ever confirming that he is dating Hayden Panettiere. At one point he did say "I'm taken" but he never once expressed who he was going out with.
[edit] Did Milo Ventimiglia suffer a (temporary) facial paralysis ?
Somebody has put Milo Ventimiglia's name on the list of famous persons with Bell's Palsy. Talk:Bell's palsy#Milo Ventimiglia and Roseanne Barr - references needed I see no evidence in this article, and only limited evidence in a Google search. Can somebody clarify and, importantly, provide a reference? Power.corrupts (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
