User talk:Milowent/Archive 1

2008-09 Archive of the Talk Page of Milowent

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

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

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

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

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

We're so glad you're here!

Aww...

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

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

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

The Last merge

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

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

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

Talkback

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

Wikistalking

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

Once again you write without a care for your ignorance of the subject matter at hand. All material on the current LGPedia page for Jackson Davis is official. Only by following your edits was I able to become aware of your personal vendetta against Lonelygirl15 related articles. You will see I that I have branched out now on Wikipedia and am trying to contribute substantively in other areas. --Milowent (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Milowent is WP:Wikistalking you. You are attacking pages in which he has a stated interest and therefore probably has on his Watchlist. I know they are on mine. Please assume good faith. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the squad

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Milowent, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Regarding AFDs

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

Wow, what a really thoughtful, brilliant response. Thanks. I am proud that you are a member of the squad. Your first barnstar I believe:

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. This barnstar is awarded to Milowent for their brilliant explanation about the psychology behind Articles for deletion, thank you. Ikip (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wowee!

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

What I find even more amazing, is users comments are sacred, and cannot be deleted, even if the editors are bullshiting about something as pedestrian as the weather, but a well researched article with several dozen footnotes is at risk of deletion anytime, as many times as editors get the urge, in a variety of ways, even by a new editor.

soap boxing aside, thanks for the brillant comments. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About that Quizbowl AfD...

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

Surely it is odd. Not shocking i guess, sometimes people get jazzed over bizarre subjects. --Milowent (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...have I been reading too much WP:SPI?? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivethinker has an opinion for a reason, he's hardly unbiased himself.--Milowent (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

True...I just wonder where he came from and why his first edits were to jump into this AfD on the side of bullofconfusion, and wiht much the same arguments as bullofconfusion...it's probably just because I read SPI too much, but it sounds very fishy in the meat or sock department...I don't know...and especially so seeing as the account was created today (September 9) after the AfD was created... Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It could very well be the same person; I don't know much about how sock investigations are triggered. It could also be that objective and bull are disgruntled former fringe quiz bowl members from the same team with an ax to grind.--Milowent (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I set up a sockpuppet investigation on the users, it can be found at [1]. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only am I not a sockpuppet, I am warning you for the uncivil language you used towards me on that talk page when I never addressed any other user with anything but propriety. The entire tone of that page and the "sockpuppet" investigation, based on nothing more than the fact that multiple people disagreed with you, are also clear violations of WP:AGF. Bullofconfusion (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoop-tee-doo, Bull. I know you are a big boy. And a smart boy as well. So just come off and help improve the article, its clear you are knowledgeable on the subject. --Milowent (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I made several edits tonight, as well as a comment regarding discussion of what is "preferred." IMHO, the standards of any one state or association shouldn't be discussed in the context of the general article (violates wp:npov) Perhaps discussion of preferences should be limited to that state or association? Interested in your viewpoint, since you're coming from a different angle.Mensa1960 (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there then

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

Glenn Beck

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

I didn't comment on this on the Glenn Beck page but there certainly are enough WP:RS which describe the man himself as controversial. I sympathize with Milowent's frustration at being jumped on and reverted for trying to contribute what appears to be a very legitimate addition to the article. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks ObserverNY. Its pathetic. There are discussion threads outside wikipedia laughing at the glenn beck page. --Milowent (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that explains why my talk page was vandalized so often last month. And it explains your animosity toward me. Bytebear (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't condone vandalism of your page, nor have any personal animosity toward you. I assume you are acting in good faith, we have just have varying opinions. --Milowent (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exploding sheep are funny?

We're watching you!

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

Praise

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

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

Raptor Jesus

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

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

Thank you

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

RE: Schools

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

Civility / bad faith

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

We can only hope, Otter. You are a turd editor and you know it. You have skills but choose to use them very questionably. I have tried to reason with you time and again to no use.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Milowent_Incivility_.2F_bad_faith.--Otterathome (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it. And if you're any more explicit than the above, I'll need to block you. Yes, some of his edits are highly annoying, but that isn't license to attack him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* Could you two give it a break already? Otterathome – Tubefilter: WP:STICK. Milowent – name calling is only going to upset Otterathome and make things worse. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a bit of time to cool off. Otterathome, regardless of anything else, I apologize for my uncivil comments. Thanks to all who posted on the ANI, and to Sarek and Toth above, I appreciate your kindness. --Milowent (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

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

Thanks from KTrimble

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

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

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

Hey KTrimble -- Extraordinary_Assumptions_and_Hypothetical_Conditions is not yet deleted, though it is proposed for deletion and has at most a week for that discussion. I believe there are many bad old articles on wikipedia, but they were created before people became sticklers for references and such, and old articles only get nominated for deletion over time; when it comes to new articles, sometimes unfortunately editors are overzealous to nominate them for deletion. I think that's a bad development, frankly, but its hard to change that culture at this point. But it can be navigated with a few simple tricks. If you are starting an article and don't have references at first, I recommend you start the article in your own userspace (i.e., a subpage under KTrimble, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KTrimble/Extraordinary_Assumptions_and_Hypothetical_Conditions&action=edit). Then, when you feel the article is ready for the wolves (maybe you seek another editor's opinion like mine, or anyone really, before you do it), you "move" (using move tab at top) the article into the "mainspace" of wikipedia. Its really a good idea to use that method when you are trying to create an in-depth article like these. SarekOfVulcan has suggested in the deletion discussion (AfD = articles for deletion, by the way) that the three related articles be "userfied" (meaning moved into your userspace) so that you can improve them. I think that's a good idea here, so you get a fresh slate and get rid of the unfortunate delete votes it is getting so far.

When an article doesn't have any references, and is on a topic unfamiliar with editors, it may be tagged as "O.R." meaning Original Research. Sometimes this means the nominator hasn't researched the subject; but sometimes they are right -- people mistakenly try to use wikipedia to post original research all the time. We all pay for that type of misuse. I have to say, I could see why your article would get caught in that snag here. Please not to be discouraged, the learning curve exists, but once you negotiate it, things aren't really that bad. --Milowent (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I went ahead and called for its deletion. The explanation is on the deletion page. I am guessing that you or Sarek are administrators or maybe have some sort of input. I would try to suggest to somebody that the place for discussions about the subject matter is in the talk pages, either of the article or of the contributors, like all of the instructions claim, not under the gun on a deletion page. Let an article get some exposure and grow a little bit before considering deletion--don't delete it right out of the box. If an article has problems, discuss it, require explanations. I don't mind defending an article or arguing over fine points of content. But deleting an article right after it is created has a different dynamic. Deleting an article (or a photo) says

• 'I think your item is crap'
• 'I have the power to delete your contribution, so my opinions are more valued than yours'
• 'Here are a few cryptic letters regarding why I think this is crap, if you want to find out more, you need to chase me down at my talk page'
• 'If you don't adequately defend or modify your contribution within the proscribed timeframe, it goes away'.

This is supposed to be fun. My natural response is to punt. I had originally envisioned a whole series of maybe a hundred articles on two or three subjects that I knew something about and doing some major rewrites to some existing articles. I am not going to go through this on every one. Right now I am working on some deadlines in the real world involving some big bankruptcies a couple of failing banks that are going to war with each other and with the Feds. Or I can work on a new Wikipedia deletion deadline. Its an easy choice. But I sincerely thank you again for your encouragement. --KTrimble (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Re: Miley/Liam

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

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

And I'm sensing...

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

October 2009

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

Personal attacks

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

Malia

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

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

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

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

with admiration

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

The Citation Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your extensive work on fixing and verifying citations in an article that you think should be deleted, I hereby award you the Citation Barnstar! Nice work, keep it up. kelapstick (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been to quite a few AfD's where the article looked great based on the volume of sources (poorly labeled), but when they were refined, it was apparent that they either were not reliable (typically self published), or didn't actually support what was being claimed. It can be quite frustrating, and it is helpful when someone does the legwork to clear things up.--kelapstick (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the notion that you deserve a barnstar for your work in verifying the citations. On another, related note, BullRangifer seems upset about some factual inaccuracies in your comment. You may wish to strikeout some of the text, on the basis of assuming good faith. I have asked BullRangifer to try to remain more civil. DigitalC (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Michele Weiner Davis

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

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

November 2009

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

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

You don't have many friends do you? I am trying to be friendly.--Milowent (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't Myspace or Match.com, and isn't going to become anything like it due to the many idiots like you on the site.--Otterathome (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I know you love me.--Milowent (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Your comment at AN/I

Comments like these:

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

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

I know these guys and I think it will help, that was my intent. You can remove it if you feel otherwise.--Milowent (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I for one appreciated the attempt at some humor ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you learned yet, Wikipedia is no place for humor! Mathieas (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. Won't remove it if you think it will help. Let's just see what happens. Just be a bit less colourful next time if you know what i mean.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Drumroll....

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

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

⚠

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

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

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

THANK YOU!!!

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

The article on Molly Windman

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

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

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

I am smiling disturbingly at you

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

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

Request for your opinion

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

Saterfrisian Wikipedia

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

shiny pretty things`

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

• fuggedaboutit! thanks!--Milowent (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

DrV

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

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

Shaycarl

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

---

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

Saterland Frisian Wikipedia

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

FloNi

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5