| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template edit
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.He also have a friends who calls 'the greatest voices' Jared Leto(30 Seconds to Mars). 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.He also have a friends who calls 'the greatest voices' Jared Leto(30 Seconds to Mars). 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)
"Ventimiglia" origin edit
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)
Yes it seems that Ventimiglia is a corruption of Intemilli, but nevertheless, the town is about 20 miles from the French border, which must be an amazing co-incidence 217.155.193.120 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The changing from Albi Intimilium to Ventimiglia occurred during the High Middle Age, I suppose. In fact the border between Italy-Liguria and France has been changed only in 1860 - see the Treaty of Turin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turin - and it would have been very amazing if people had changed the name of their town knowing that their homes would have been at a such distance from a border settled something about 10 centuries in the future.... but I don't really think this is the right place for a historical discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.195.102 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Relationship with Hayden Panettiere edit
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 admitted 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)
- Why has this not been added to this article? There are details of their relationship in Panettiere's article, so why not here? I support the adding of these details. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There should be consistency among the Wikipedia editors. As of 2008-12-14 the People magazine information is on Hayden's page but not Milo's, but equal relevance to both. Either allow on both or remove on both. 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.244.171 (talk) It has been publicly announced by Ventimiglia that he is dating Panettiere. That is solid fact unless he was lying, which, face it, why would he do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.244.56 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Notability of German Pants edit
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)
Alleged confirmation on BBC Radio 1 interview edit
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.
Did Milo Ventimiglia suffer a (temporary) facial paralysis ? edit
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)
- Yes, I'd like to know if he had a stroke or something. The left side of his mouth clearly has some sort of paralysis. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
*No title* edit
{{editsemiprotected}}
Milo Anthony Ventimiglia (/ˈmaɪloʊ ˌvɛntɪˈmiljə/;[1] born July 8, 1977) is an American television actor best known for his role of Peter Petrelli on the TV series Heroes.
Nik Dahl (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What year was he born? '77 or '80. Spanish article says '77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseGiorganaP (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
REST edit
_ _ Mention in Milo Ventimiglia#Production_work of this apparently 1½-issue fall-2007 comic (planned for 4½ issues) was added 05:03, 6 July 2008 by a comics fan with a 21-hour interest in WP and copyedited in the next edit and a few days later; the only net change since has been the concealment of the time context (and the apparent occasion) of the project.
_ _ I am neither removing nor fixing the 'graph, which others may undertake, but i am treating it as insufficient basis for a Dab entry at Rest.
--Jerzy•t 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milo Ventimiglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808213055/http://www.mensfitness.com/life/entertainment/milo-ventimiglia to http://www.mensfitness.com/life/entertainment/milo-ventimiglia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Milo Ventimiglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516075946/http://www.miloventimigliafan.com/milo/index.php?bio to http://www.miloventimigliafan.com/milo/index.php?bio
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924154633/http://www.mensvogue.com/magazine/articles/2008/10/milo-ventimiglia to http://www.mensvogue.com/magazine/articles/2008/10/milo-ventimiglia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Tell (2014) edit
It strikes me as a shocking omission among all the TV and voiceover stuff, nothing is written about this actor's brilliant tour de force as the protagonist in the film Tell. He carried that remarkable movie as the narrator and appearing in every scene. This is a shame.OrodesIII (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)