User talk:Milowent/Archive 3

2011 Archive of the Talk Page of Milowent

Priebus

His law firm profile says Reince R. Priebus. Flatterworld (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, i guess we can defer to that. Thanks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeannine Edwards (sportscaster)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Jeannine Edwards (sportscaster): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Flyguy33 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cardon (2nd nomination)

I found many more articles about her notability as a youth weight-lift champion, as well as other dealing with her roles in film and television. The article's sourcing has begun.[1] I feel both WP:ENT[2] and WP:GNG[3] have been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

/* Choose Your Own Adventure article */

Greetings!

Thanks for your help a few months ago re: the CYOA article.

Unfortunately, there's some type of legal action re: the article now, and they have someone in charge of finding sources for a new version of the article- it's just bones currently. Don't know if you have the time or the inclination, but if you do and you have access to any more awesome sources like the 1981 AP article that you placed on the page previously, it would be awesome for you to help.

All the best, Seanmercy (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Neptune 123...

...was previously called Libertarian Warrior. Just in case you're still wondering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wonder what he was before that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Any number of possibilities come to mind, but no one that stands out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Foreign Body (internet series)

The article Foreign Body (internet series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not able to verify notability in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Utterman (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Foreign Body (internet series) for deletion

The article Foreign Body (internet series) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Body (internet series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Utterman (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. PS Time to archive? Your page gave my computer a coronary (which is likely more a testament to my crappy computer than your page) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible article?

Hello Milowent - I see that you keep a list of possible future article ideas on your user page, and thought you might consider adding Jack Towers. The name is currently a redirect to Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live, however as a Grammy Award winner and respected individual in his field he has enough notability to support a stand alone article. As he passed away on December 23, there is currently a flurry of solid biographical sources available, such as this New York Times obit. No biggie if you're not interested, but thought I would check just in case. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Darn! There are so many good article subjects yet to be tackled! Its going on my list. BTW, anyone reading is open to taking any of those idea and/or userspace drafts and birthing them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for alleviating my guilt at not creating it myself. I've been concentrating on cleaning up, referencing, and expanding older stub articles to start class, so I wasn't sure if I'd have the time to start an article from scratch. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I decided to compile an article on Towers since I had already done sourcing for Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live. I had thought maybe WP:BLP1E precluded a separate article on Towers at the moment but a rummaged up another cite or two that should be enough. Please check the draft at User talk:AjaxSmack/Sandbox/Jack Towers if you're interested or have input. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This draft looks quite good already, I think its fine.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Utterman

Yes, he also nominated two of my articles for deletion, both of which were vetted by other royalty writers. I wonder what criteria he is using to do his slash-and-burn.

Humor

If you were trying to be funny, I can't see it. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm hoping to be appreciated by future generations, then :s - --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut Wine Trail

Hey Milowent. Good to see you and I really appreciate the referencing work you are doing on this article. Just yesterday I was discussing an idea with a WP:CONNECTICUT editor who expressed interest in the article about merging it with Connecticut wine. The main Conn wine article is woefully stubby and it would really benefit with the added context from the CT Wine trails article. Since you started working on this article, I wanted to know if this was something you would be okay with? None of your work would be lost, of course. It would just be consolidated in the one article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Agne, merger would be fine with me. Realistically its probably the best place for the information to be. I stumbled across that article randomly on your list of wine improvement articles, and I can't even recall how I stumbled on that list!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL...no problem. Again, I appreciate your work. We might not always disagree on notability issues but you certainly do good work on Wikipedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Choose Your Own Adventure

Please don't do things like this, in accordance with the policy on living people. From that policy:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to all material about living people on Wikipedia. This obviously includes areas on articles that are under the WP:OFFICE protection, and subsequently have a high number of eyes watching them. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I understand why you deleted my comment, but the situation is quite ridiculous at the moment. Following WP:V is what I am trying to do.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Frustration talking

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

J04n(talk page) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Silly of me to infer that you wouldn't improve and source the article, cheers. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• thanks! no worries, we're on the same page re needing references.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

المتسول

مرحباً

هل بامكانك أنشاء صفحة بالإنجليزية لفيلم عادل إمام المتسول.Slmcom (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to beef up the plot and reception sections a bit more, but its now created at The Beggar (film). Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

This is the finest Arab filmsSlmcom (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Adam Kane (author)

Well spotted as a hoax. I added a PROD2, but then after looking at the history I tagged it db-g7. We really shot ourselves in the foot with this one: the original author blanked it three times a few days later, and was reverted each time; then an IP, probably the same guy, repeatedly blanked it saying "Article has been deleted due to misinformation" but was reverted too. He must have despaired of Wikipedia. I wish people would pay a bit more attention rather than just automatically reverting blankings! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree! I saw the same blankings and thought the same. He probably wrote it about a buddy as a joke and wished he hadn't.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My unexplainable deletion...

I have replied on my page. I can't understand how that happened! Jusdafax 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Journal-World

I was wondering that too. The actual newspaper says 2011 is the 153rd volume taking it back to 1858 but, as you mentioned in the article it was merged in 1911. I actually asked people at the Journal-World and no one knew why it was the 153rd volume. My only guess is it is a continuation of earlier papers or they are trying to connect themselves to the Herald of Freedom which ran from 1854 to 1859. But it still doesn't make sense. I'll update the article to show the conflicting dates. Bhall87^{Four Score}_{and Seven} 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Look at this! - if you search the Lawrence J-W archives on google, the oldest uploaded edition is Feb 20, 1911 (see [4]) -- it has a volume LV (55) listed there, meaning a founding date of 1856, not 1858! It appears that Volume 93 was left on the masthead for 3 years -- all of 1949, 1950, and 1951, finally moving to Vol 94 in 1952, thus leaving an implied founding date moved to 1858. I did not search farther to see if this is explained somewhere in the paper. I have seen instances of papers simply making mistakes in their founding dates before, e.g., the New York Morning Telegraph, successor to the Sunday Mercury used to claim it was founded in 1833, but the real date was 1839. No one could check these things so easily before google news archives, which seems to be expanding all the time. (Bonus: a misprint "1828" LJW edition, presumably actually from 1928)--[5]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy - its gets even worse!! The Lawrence Daily Journal from 1880-1911 is on google news archives as well![6]. The 1911 papers say vol 55, and that convention goes back to January 9, 1907, which was marked as Volume 51 - but the day prior was marked Volume 38!! The oldest Lawrence Daily Journal on google is 1/1/1880,[7], listing it as Volume 11 (meaning a founding date in 1870, right?)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And here is the "Republican Daily Journal"! 1879 papers say Volume 10.[8] Jan 1, 1870 says volume 1, but issue 258.[9]. The archives go back to March 4, 1869, which says volume 1, issue 1.[10].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here's an 1890 editorial[11] in the Lawrence Daily Record which suggests the Republican Daily Journal predated March 4, 1869, which is when T.D. Thatcher and two others acquired it -- i think the column is saying that it can be dated back to 1861 as a weekly and 1865 as a daily; though it also says the Journal is now defunct; perhaps it was some temporary change or glitch in actuality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• other notes:[12] (April 6, 2001)- "Since 1854, there have been more than 100 newspapers of varying sizes and degrees in Lawrence. W.C. Simons remained active with the newspaper until his death in 1952. The current Journal-World is an amalgamation of some 40 publications through the years."
• [13] (1974 masthead says established 1854); (12/18/81, same) [14]; 9/1/72 (same)[15]; 1/1/64 (same) [16]; 1/6/54 (same) [17]; 1/1/53 (says founded 1891 - referring to W.C. Simons, seems to have been added after Simons died in 1952--I suspect that adding the 1891 date led to arguments that the proper date was much earlier.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unimportant but interesting find

I thought you might find this newspaper excerpt as interesting as I did; I was looking up some old news references to add to the John Agar article, and pulled up this rather amusing newspaper clip about Agar being denied a marriage license until he drank enough coffee and ran around the courthouse enough times to sober up. That in itself was interesting, but the story below also piqued my interest - a woman randomly goes missing off the street of Milwaukee when out to buy a stamp. I poked around here and there but couldn't find any follow-up or even hints as to the outcome. Finally, I scrolled over to the previous page (the bottom of page 2) and was captivated by an ad for an evangelist named "Little David". He looks so mad, like he's going to punch the Word of God into you. It was a perfect storm of interesting bits, so I wanted to share. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• You are as warped as me! I love it, thanks for sharing! "Little David Walker" appears to be the preacher -- and he's still preaching! [18] (2009 book); see also [19] (1948 story); [20] (1951 - license suspended for speeding story...haha); [21] (1975 pic/blurb); [22] (non-reliable source biog through 1990s, and alleged pic of david "hovering" above stage in 50s). There appears to be enough out there for an article, in fact. I've seen preacher articles survive AfD with much less.
• As for Ms Ambers -- that's odd, I can't find anything either! The only Evelyn Ambers in SSI death index has middle initial E. and was born in 1922, not 1928/29. Scanned the next few days of the paper but unless it was a very small item, nothing followed about it. So presumably they found her? Or did she flee her young husband and son for unknown reasons? We may never know. Even her sister's house address is now a vacant lot.[23]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That book and photo are priceless - and always with The Fist! If you're able to pull up enough info on Little David to make an article stick you'll be my hero. Make sure to include a section header "He can't drive 55" --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I will also include 6 year old singing Cindy[24].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Little David returns to Bangor"? That title is a wonder in and of itself. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cindy does puppets too! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the children!!

Thanks for the laughs. Truly cracked me up. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

annapolis dearborn AFD

Did you read this AFD closely? There's certainly no consensus for deleting the article or a call for sources, the issue is disambiguating and such. tedder (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I saw it was a mess, but AfD is for deletion, right?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, afd has sort of evolved to 'discussion' more than just deletion. I just wanted to know if you'd read enough to know that deletion wasn't being seriously considered. I was tempted to IAR and just do the merge, but I decided to wait for a closing admin to hit it. tedder (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rescue Article

Not to bother you as I see you have a LOT on your plate including numerous rescue articles. But have you had a chance to look at the Donald G. Martin rescue article? I am Don Martin and I certainly don't want to touch it, edit it or ask others whom I know to edit it (I learned that lesson the hard way the first time around). Just simply wanted to bring it to your attention for your own personal review when you have time or when it moves up your list of articles to review/rescue. A link to verification articles from the first time around (one recalcitrant editor claimed that some of the cited articles were not even relevant, but that's because they were paid archives that he did not read, so I went ahead and provided full text) as well as the original case for "notability" is located in my archives [HERE] Thanks. Austex • Talk 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• You know Don, I feel bad I haven't gotten to that yet. I believe I took this article over into my userspace to prevent its total deletion from wikipedia, and when I went back to it recently I was a bit worried that we don't have enough to establish notability. If only you weren't a one-term lieutenant governor in Nebraska in the 19th century (de facto notable! I created a few of these articles recently...). Thanks for the link, I will review that and promise to respond within the next few days on my views. Even if I personally am concerned about its viability, I could do my best and release it to mainspace to see what the community thinks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's all I can ask for. I do try to make a case for Notability at the referenced location above. See what you think. Meanwhile I'll see about running for Lt Governor! Austex • Talk 00:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thre is one other option: There is an old test page re my company (Don Martin Public Affairs) that could be merged or even replace this article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulajakobs/test Austex • Talk 04:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

Hi, you might want to consider using RefToolbar, there are two versions, RefToolbar 1.0 and RefToolbar 2.0. I prefer the 1.0 but they both make adding properly formatted references much easier. Bare urls like you added to Yossi Ben Hanan can be a bit of an eyesore plus if the link goes dead it is hard to track down where it came from. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for alerting me to those, i had no idea they existed. i am fairly quick at doing full source refs in "freehand" and try to do so as often as possible. i must admit a bit of fatigue at the sourcing project right now, as again and again i learn that all the "sky is falling" stuff about BLPs was always total baloney. so i decided to at least rifle through one letter of the current project with bare URLs, at least i am looking at the content which sometimes no one has done for years, to confirm no BLP issues. i appreciate the notice, though. the prospect of maybe 10~20 of us clearing out this backlog (outside of topic projects) is a bit crazy, even though that is substantially what has happened.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hear you, we've been at this for over a year now and it is exhausting. Have a good weekend. J04n(talk page) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Where'd you go?

You've been missing for a week. :( Silverseren^C 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Believes it or not, vacation, without the internetz! Will be back shortly after the rest of the real world backlog is caught up with!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Stoepel

Thanks. I really can do better, but I've just been so busy with so many things that seemed to have snowballed last week. Perhaps after a rest I can flesh out some detail. Thanks for the nice words! -- 02:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch - I'll forego the hold, but I should follow up on the reviewer's suggestions. Thanks again! -- kosboot (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Emilia Carr

Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you that the Afd has been closed as No Consensus. I feel it is a "victory" for the "Keepers".. It feels particularly good this time as the Afd discussion was at best really nasty. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi Milowent. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

The Afd on Emilia Carr is in its final stage, perhaps if you feel like it you could leave a final comment to the closing admin on the Afd on why it should be Kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

no one ever responded to my expanded !vote! frankly, it doesn't look good for Emilia because the randomness of participation has led to more delete voters this time. Her article will no doubt come back if its deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Some help?

I did some work on User:Silver seren/Choose Your Own Adventure. Bleh, i've just been busy with other stuff on WP. I hate being involved in five different debates at once. @_@ But, yeah, do you have the time to help out with it? Silverseren^C 07:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take a look, i promise! I've been meaning to get back to it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment at Rebecca Black DRV

Would you mind retracting or expanding on this comment? I know you meant it in good fun, but given the amount of negative press and commentary about Mrs. Black, I worry that it can easily be read as derisive (meaning that I misread it that way, too, and had to stop to think about it). Additionally, without any reasoning beyond the bolded word, your statement is likely to be ignored by the closer. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• She's notable, its the latest "omg the world will end if she has an article" silliness.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stuff In Your Citations and Possible Deletion

You don't add stuff like "...someone hugely popular, like Ray William Johnson" in a citation. It makes it and you look juvenile. You best remove that stuff if you want to be taken seriously. If you want this to survive deletion debate is to put it a hang on tag. The stuff you have on their has nothing people don't already know. That's the problem with the article. You are not putting any information in the article that people don't know. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not impressed with how you have conducted yourself in the debates over Mr. Johnson's notability, so if you want to accuse me of being juvenile, go right ahead. However, I would ask that you do not nominate it for deletion yourself, because you have made this a personal issue for yourself and would likely find it difficult to be objective. I regularly include parentheticals in citations to convey relevant information contained in the source. To claim that there's no information in the "article that people don't know" seems odd; I am sure there are people on earth who know not of Mr. Johnson, an encyclopedia is where they find that information.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've actually looked at each link presented in the discussions and have seen that none of them are suitable. People were bringing up any any link with the slightest mention of him without actually truly thinking if it was a good article. So don't get mad that these terrible links didn't make it. The stuff you put in those citations are still there. As well, the information in the article, nine times out of ten, people know that already. If you don't put stuff in the article that people don't know and just the stuff people do know, then you've failed as an editor. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I must be the one 1 of 10 that do not know anything about Ray William Johnson. You are making some rather broad and baseless assertions in your note. Are you asserting that if you know something, then in all likelihood the vast majority (you claim 90%) of Wikipedia readers also have that knowledge, and therefore it does not need to be included in a Wikipedia article? I must be reading your argument wrong as I can't imagine any regular editor would make such a claim. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• C.C., its no concern to me that newish editors would suggest some unworthy sources in the prior discussions of the subject. We should not bite them, that's what's contributing to our declining stock of new editors[25]. In any event, your suggestion that "If you don't put stuff in the article that people don't know and just the stuff people do know, then you've failed as an editor" is so utterly absurd that I acknowledge your trolling as sublime.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

High School Articles

Hi. I know such a consensus exists, though I don't agree with it. In my opinion, a high school can't be notable only by the fact that it exists, it is not sufficient. In most areas, a subject doesn't only need to exist to be notable. Unfortunately, most people think the contrary and follow the consensus blindly. I just hope it will change, one day. Maimai009 10:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Requiring AfD to parse every individual high school would be a useless bureaucratic waste of editor time. We aren't following consensus blindly, we have developed a rule to avoid blindness to that bucreacratic waste of time. Before the consensus developed, almost every high school was kept anyway.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sian O'Callaghan

Hi my friend,if you feel like it please participate in this articles Afd. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album)

Please contribute to the discuss whether or not this article should be deleted at its articles for deletion page. Thank you! ℥^nding·start 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Glad to see it's already been rescued. Thanks for the notice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ray William Johnson

Hello! Your submission of Ray William Johnson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• lol, i will try to look at this in the next 12 hours. thanks for the notice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for writing the base information for the Ray William Johnson. I have added some extra information to that article, too. Personally, I think Mr. C.C. is acting childish. You seem to agree with me on that point. He seems to have a personal vendetta against RWJ that I haven't seen since editors didn't want to include Philip DeFranco on the list (that was crazy childish as well, seeing as he was in the top 10 over three years ago.)

Mr. C.C. once again unilaterally removed RWJ from the List of YT celebrities again (citing no sources,) even though he has his own Wiki page now. I have since added him back, including as many links as I could find. Add any if you'd like. Also, keep a vigilant eye on the list. I suspect, even though I advised Mr. C.C. against it, that Mr. C.C. will again remove him from the list. I fear we will have to get the Wiki admins involved here to settle this.

Thanks again! PokeHomsar (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• If CC removes him again, let me know, he shall regret it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward Mermelstein

As you've been asking on User talk:Ravpapa to be notified of any new AfD for this, here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein (2nd nomination). Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing the handiwork of jonathangluck

I have nominated the following articles for deletion, all flowing from the pen of the sockpuppet firm of 5WPR:

Elie Hirschfeld Stewart Rahr GoldMoney Kinray Jordan Sekulow

You may may wish to comment. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

They keep removing him...

They keep removing RWJ from the list of YouTube celebrities... And I keep adding him back... PokeHomsar (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He did it again, for Christ's sake. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ray William Johnson

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Do_not_remove_Ray_William_Johnson. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Though I've certainly seen worse, referring to an editor as a little punk is not appropriate. You should know better. Terrillja _talk 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking, but I will not revise the comment. The editor in question has rebuffed multiple civil inquiries.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Colin Hatch

Hi, I have nominated Colin Hatch to be restored as the AFD result was a clear No Consensus vote. Join the discussion if you want to, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_6#Colin_hatch.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mad?

You seem to be mad because the articles are crap that are used to source his entry. Using a "top YouTube videos of the week" article is not acceptable. Using an article that has two lines of stuff than a video attached is not acceptable. Like I said, if you can't find a good article on him is about HIM and not just a video he released, than don't add him. I have yet to find an article or interview on him that fits what I have trying to find. It's not the source that is the problem necessarily, it's the article itself. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Luckily, wikipedia does not operate only on your personal opinions. We're all entitled to our opinions, but you are on notice to stop acting without consensus in this area. I'd note that the RWJ article made Did You Know? today, which it could not have done free of your alleged concerns.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Request For Evaluation

Hello, my name is Zach. I see that you are quite a busy Wikipedian, so I will try to make this short. I recently created the article "Eddsworld" and it was proposed for deletion. I have worked very hard in addressing the issues raised by the person, but no response has been attempted. I have found reliable sources for the article and removed any unreliable sources. The only problem is that I do not think the article will be re-evaluated by the original nominator and I do not think I can remove the article from deletion myself. Would you please evaluate the article and give your opinion HERE, and/or remove the deletion tag (or what-ever it is called) if you find it suitable? I think the issue is that because reliable sources are "difficult" to find, the subject is not notable, but I have found many sources that meet Wikipedia's 3rd Criteria for Web Notability. Thank-you for any help you can give, and thank-you for all the work you have (obviously) done for Wikipedia. Zach Winkler (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Zach, glad to give my opinion. Firstly, once an article is sent to Articles for Deletion (AfD), no editor can just remove the deletion tag, the discussion generally must run for 7 days. Looking at the article right now, I'm concerned that it doesn't demonstrate notability because the sourcing really isn't that good for wikipedia standards on such things. I see that Eddworlds has a healthy subscriber count on youtube (over 250K), and decent viewcounts on his videos (perhaps a mid 6 figure average viewcount, which means he's making decent money on these). However, I don't see and can't find in a quick search any newspaper/media source articles profiling Eddsworld. Since he's a brit, I checked highbeam.com which has a decent archive of british papers, but didn't find anything. He seems popular enough on youtube to perhaps have garnered some newspaper coverage. But unless it exists and can be shown, this article is probably going to get deleted. Let me know if I can help any further.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I find this comment from user Bob House 884 to be on the verge of an bad faith personal attack on the discussion on Colin Hatch, I have commented and justified my position anyway but I find it so sad that users just cant comment on the articles non-notability or notability without going for a personal attack. This is the second time im being sent hateful comments by a user just for simply stating my opinion in a nice and proper manor, and that just only on this discussion:). I have never understood why the "deletionists" are so aggressive against "Keepers":) Perhaps a civility warning to the user would be appropriate because ,it was a long time ago that someone was this offensive to me. Im just being honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I hear ya BabbaQ. Don't sweat the jerkbags, wikipedia is no different than real life, don't let them sap your enjoyment. But also remember that what you perceive is not always what a blunt comment intends.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The user also did apologize if I found it offensive.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it

It looks like RWJ has survived Mr. C.C.'s campaign against him on the List. I'm surprised people haven't noticed that there's a guy with just his YouTube channel added as a reference. I like the guy, so I'm just waiting for someone else to see it. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by to say hello

I came across this article today, which I found relatively intriguing, especially the bits about Candy Barr. Poked around GNews and came across some interesting old articles I thought you might enjoy (such as this and this). Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. I see Candy actually has a grandchild named "snickers barr"!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The story had everything...strippers, gangsters, drugs. What more can you ask for? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's live... and it may be useful...

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about RWJ

First of all thanks a lot for the article you did on RayWilliamJohnson. I had a small queston btw, I been following the whole stunt that Mr.C.C was trying to pull, so I was wondering if there was any way to check if he has submited the article for Deletion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.172.49 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Its not currently up for deletion, at least. If you want to keep track, create a wikipedia account and add the RWJ page to your watchlist, that way you can track if it gets nominated. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. C. C. is doing it again...

But for a different YouTuber, this time the Microwave? guys. PokeHomsar (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Colin Hatch has been reopened as AFD on my initiative. If you feel like it join the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin

You were not notified of the deletion nomination of User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin, so I will notify you now. The deletion nomination is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin. Cunard (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin

All apologies Milowent. This was entirely unintended though and even if it's not a very good excuse, I blame Twinkle. I suppose I should take responsibility for not checking that Twinkle completed all steps correctly though. Best, Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven Bärtschi

Hi Milowent. I just want to make you aware of that User:Dolovis has copy-pasted all the content you added to Sven Bärtschi into an article with an alternate spelling, Sven Baertschi. See diffs: The content you added to Sven Bärtschi and the same content added by Dolovis to Sven Baertschi. I have also made a note about this on Dolovis' talk page. Cheers Tooga - BØRK! 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that's a bit odd! I made Sven Baertschi (which is the de-umlatted spelling) into a redirect. Thanks for the notice!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Revenge nom?

Hi Milowent. I'm tempted to ask what you meant by "revenge nom" when I've got nothing to seek revenge over, and nothing in my statement implied a desire for revenge-- Not one of the over 600 articles I've started has yet been deleted, and I started the very article which I nominated. My meaning was only that the combative, aggressive, and bullying tactics cultivated here are detrimental to the growth of content. Good, productive contributors become bitter, and are driven off by it. While I am happily contributing elsewhere, the destruction of content continues here... The editor who has been deleting the Playmate articles without discussion, by redirecting them to the lists I started is just one of them... I say I'm tempted to ask what you meant, but the sarcasm implied makes me feel I don't want the answer any more than I want to participate with a group that tolerates the sort of behavior that goes on here. I keep thinking this should bother someone here, but obviously it doesn't... Best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• So it is a revenge nom, in my mind. I don't believe in endorsing deletion out of frustration at deletionists. I agree that productive contributors are being driven off, and I defend newbie contributions all the time. I think we are likely on the same page, you're just currently feeling more pessimistic than I.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dougie Hamilton

Went ahead and userfied it at User:Milowent/Dougie Hamilton. We'll see if he's a first-round pick. In the NFL draft a player projected to be first overall fell out of the first round so one can never be too sure. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

If you have the time please check out the AfD for Jesse Imeson.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your comments regarding the quality of my work improving the article Santorum (sexual neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black

Hi Milowent! I have been following your edits on Rebecca Black, and thank you for maintaining vigilance with the BLP policy. It is much appreciated. I just wanted to remind you that comments like you made on the talk page of the user who added the BLP content are definitely not WP:CIVIL. Also the more personal you make the comments, the less likely the user is to change, as he will see the exchange as a personal offense and not a policy offense. I'll be watching this page so you can reply here if you want. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've just investigated the history of this talk page, and I don't think Tonyroolz is the kind of editor who will be persuaded... still, being civil is always a good policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Always a good policy, but I took the risk of varying from it a bit that time. :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI mention

You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. --Damiens.rf 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yippee. More drama bullshit!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden/RIP

Hi. I noticed that you pasted a copy of User:Colonel Warden/RIP to your user page. I mentioned this at the current discussion WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#User:Colonel Warden/RIP. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked, my discovery was fortuitous: I was reading discussion at Template talk:Rescue, clicked your signature, and recognized the section title. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is http://milowent.blogspot.com/ your blog? It has a copy of the RIP page that you mentioned posting off-wiki. It also has deleted articles that appear to be missing a List of authors or other attribution. Emailed page histories may be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion. You may want to review WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden/RIP

(Milo notes: I am copying this from my user page) Milowent, I have removed this. Please don't replace it. Whatever the intention it has all the appearance of trolling. I won't block you personally, but I think that's what'll happen. This simply serves to escalate drama.--Scott Mac 07:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

With hindsight, my talk of blocks was unhelpful. I apologise. I should simply have asked you not to do this, and assumed your good faith. Thanks for not replacing it. The DRV consensus will settle the matter either way, and hopefully that's the end of it. Again apologies for being unnecessarily aggressive.--Scott Mac 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its ok, I really don't understand what all the brouhaha is about, but I do understand you have a good faith reason for removing it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Milowent: Trust me; drama like this gets you going downhill RAPIDLY unless it's all sorted out. The list you posted on your userpage was perceived by many as an 'attack page' (The page it was from was deleted under CSD G10; see G10 here). You may have had no knowledge of this but the fact it was put there by you will likely raise some tricky questions. I know from personal experience Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did not propose your userpage for deletion, only the offending section with a dash of IAR (technically it would be a revision delete). Posting something that's been deleted per a deletion discussion really isn't appropriate. N419BH 14:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the AfD

Excuse me, but I very much do not appreciate being accused of WP:SOCK with absolutely no foundation, as well as making an AfD WP:PERSONAL. Most especially since you have contributed nothing to the discussion, besides crowing over the loss of an editor, and slinging accusations.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I do not appreciate your extremely uncivil behavior in the AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, that does not give you sufficient reason to be uncivil yourself, or make false accusations. Secondly, if you have a problem with how I conduct myself, please bring it to my attention. Could you please cite specific examples?

Homo Logica (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

• You're smart enough to know already.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will ask you again, to please refrain from making the AfD personal. If you require an answer, I am very detail-oriented, and make sure that I understand something, before I comment on it. You seem to have focused on insulting me for citing policies, guidelines and essays that agree with my stance. Please review WP:PERSONAL and WP:GOODFAITH. Continued personal attacks can result in consequences, and it would not be good for WP to lose a good editor.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Milowent. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Homo Logica (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

FYI: There is an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination) you may be interested in. You participated in previous discussions on the topic, so I am sending you a notification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've chimed in. I did some actual research on the term and article last time, so I appreciate the notification.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Milowent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Notification

Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page - Keith Raniere

Hi there Milowent, I wanted to take the time to apologize for what has been going on within the Raniere talk page. The page does need cleanup for sure and I am hoping that all editors who wish to, can work together to build consensus on future edits. Thank you! U21980 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• U2, I haven't been following those pages in the last few days, but I am happy to see communication taking place, and happy also that the edit warring stopped (at least it did when I looked!). Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Wisdom has been noted

Just to let you know, I have included and attributed a recent comment by you in my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . If you mind let me know. Thanks, and nice to meet you,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Homo Logica (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue

Thanks for the welcome! I just did my first big overhaul on the article Kirk Olivadotti (here). It took me hours though to do a thorough bio. I have no idea how people move so fast. I guess they just find one or two sources, enough so that it's no longer unsourced and move on? So I guess my question is - is the project more about quality or quantity? Because seriously, I never even heard of this guy before and it took me ages to do what I did (I found him through the random generator, which btw I don't think is working for actors so you might want to look into that), so I have no idea how else people could move so quickly if they're going for quality (but then again, maybe some people are simply going for quantity?).

Anyway, thanks again for the welcome and hopefully I can contribute some more articles soon :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue with unreferenced BLPs, for now, is that they need to be sourced as soon as possible. While we do want quality, yes, that's something that can be worked on after all of them have sources verifying the information on them. Otherwise, some people are going to start clamoring to delete all the ones that don't have sources, as was proposed a few times before all of this began. So, for this sort of thing, quantity is necessary, while quality is a more long term prospect once all of this is finished. Silverseren^C 04:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything SS says is true. I try to find a few sources for each uBLP, but it really depends on what's readily available. I usually update the tag to BLP refimprove (meaning it needs more sources) if I do not think the cites I have added are the end of the job. I do, however, make sure i review the whole article for any BLP "concerns" before leaving it (because this is the actual concern which eventually led to this project, to avoid further mass article deletions from editors who believed unreferenced BLPs were minefields of bad BLP info), and I also watchlist it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Smiles

Per "I've got crotch bulge watchlisted already!" Try taking a cold shower.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help with the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere! Chrisrus (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC) HOLY MOLEY my sentments exactly!! :) Chrisrus (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For wasting people's time with silly wikilove messages. :P —SW— gab 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The love is kinda killed when you remove the kitten.  :-( --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tschann

BTW, while I moved this from BLPu to BLPs based on the offline sources, I still think you're right that it's unlikely this artist meets the appropriate notability guidelines, no challenge to your PROD intended, I didn't actually see that we were edit conflicting until I saved. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• No problem, what you did makes sense.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

An all American apple pie for you!

Happy 4th of July! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree --Vinie007 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while

...since I've come across something I consider "Milowent-worthy", but upon researching info for the Martin Gabel article, I came across this. The "We're really celebrating" quote was what tipped it over the line from tragic to surreal. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, that is just amazing. "At that instant...", so well played! Sadly the guy died, the widow got $185K in a lawsuit.[26]. If this happened today, we'd have an article Death of Alvin Rodecker.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! So true...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Gestapo

• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_15#File:NY_Times_Best_Seller_List_May_25_1980.jpg - I have to laugh at editors who enforce copyright to a ten-fold greater extent than actual lawyers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jason N.

That's a good example of a "party leader" that probably SHOULD be in Wikipedia but which would almost certainly be deleted for lack of sources if the piece were hauled to AfD. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, help transfer file to commons

Please, place this file: File:LCC.jpg to Commons, category:Klaipėda's LCC International University. The problems are, that:

1. It seems I'm blocked, as I personally can't transfer any file to Commons
2. On Commons other file with the same name really exists, so one need rename it. (e.g. to Klaipėda's LCC International University2007-03-27 or similar)
3. No one of collegues tried help with this problem yet (as to 2011-08-04 17:30 (UTC))

Thank You in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Transerred, not needed to transter from now. Thanks to Drilnoth. Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rose Massey

I saw this, which might get you started: http://www.gabrielleray.150m.com/ArchiveTextM/RoseMassey.html She was part of Lydia Thompson's troupe, the British Blondes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New Drive

I am currently planning a new WikiProject Abandoned Drafts drive for all of winter. Project members may join right now. If you would want to participate, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drives/Planning/Winter Special. The drive will start in 12 years ago. ~~~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Virginia Earthquake article

I changed the article title to east coast earthquake, and you reverted it back, I had changed it because I think that there can be a more broad topic title. I spoke with other people thoughout the world who have no idea where Virginia is. I think it should be changed to something else. I agree with you that many people will not understand what east coast is, but something else would suffice, such as 2011 eastern United States earthquake. Please get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbert1994 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Milowent, I am a reporter at The Washington Post. I am writing a story on how quickly articles evolved on Wiki related to the earthquake yesterday. It's a moment to write about history being written in the moment, collectively, which is part of what Wiki is all about. I'm trying to reach folks who have been active on the topic, and I think you weighed in. Can you contact me? Thank you. Phone is preferable if you can. If it's long distance, I can call you back....Best, David Montgomery, The Washington Post, 202-334-7224, [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.44.4 (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit summary of yours seemed inappropriate to me

I'd say "douchebag" is an inappropriate term to use in an edit summary. For one thing, why should an innocent item of hygiene become an insult term? This usage seems to me to have an overtone of gynophobia somehow. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree that its inappropriate. My apologies. Gynophobia is an interesting term to apply to it, since what generated my response was a pathetic attack on a female by an editor that probably has never touched a female other than his mother. But, nevertheless, it was inappropriate of me and I shall refrain in the use of the term.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Wilson the artist is notable

Thank you for trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. I added a pile of newspaper sources. He has 47 works at the Victoria and Albert museum alone, never mind other museums. I'll be adding links to some of his collected works after double checking how this has been done for other artists. If further editing is needed, feel free to contact me. I don't know the in's and out's of deletion, but I assume that I can just delete the deletion notice?Jay-p (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Always nice running into you, Milowent, even on the ARS talk page. BTW, I noticed you said a naughty word on the above AfD: tsk tsk! Best, Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

where is the RS for this addition you made

Hi - what is going on here? Where is the reliable source for your addition here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shira_Lazar&diff=450859145&oldid=450698560 diff] - Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Maggie

Many thanks for the picture you added to When You and I Were Young, Maggie. I note a possible very minor error in the description on the picture.

This cover, which has different artwork, was subsequently published by Oliver Ditson & Co. Perhaps in 1866, but if not 1866, certainly well before 1823, and clearly in the public domain.

I guess the well before 1823 is a typo. Best wishes and thanks again. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

• oops, thanks! I updated it, its 1923.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I think moving the Tennessee story down and into a new section (including the Eagle scouts and Henry Ford (I can't read behind the paywall)) would be very nice! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

WOOOHOOO!!!

		The Empty Set Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in eliminating unreferenced BLPs! What a great project you created!joe deckertalk to me 16:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)	{ }

Thank you! I could never have maintained my energy for the project without you.... having a focused project, and camaraderie, really made a big difference to me. Thanks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (Err, this was in response to the star you put on my own TP, but you get the idea. I'm a bit giddy.  :-) ) --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I got it! :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Joe, the giddiness will disappear after the third or fourth shot; after that it's all warm glowiness. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

You also deserve an extra cute kitten for your inspirational leadership in clearing the backlog! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pocket God and Ghriscore

Since I'm not familiar with Pocket God, can you summarize the nature of that edit? I can sorta figure out what the problems are with it, but would prefer if you detail them to me slightly. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked through the edit in question, and the source he cited, and have blocked him for one week. I don't think individual administrators are empowered to ban editors. That requires a lengthy process, as with the Arbitration Committee, and will only happen, unfortunately, after an extended period of said behavior. Hopefully the block will be enough for him to get the message, and if not, we'll simply impose longer ones on him.

However-- please do not ever refer to another editor as a "douche" or "loser", as you did in the edit summary that accompanied your revert of his edit. Doing so is a clear violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, regardless of whether you feel it's warranted. I know we all lose our tempers at times (myself included), but it's important that for the most part, we keep cool heads. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

comedy central

Hi - that was amusing - I was also watching and laughing. That pair had been edit warring together to remove the COI template and the COI was deafening, never mind the meatpuppet/sock revert. - hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help with the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM! Chrisrus (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we need another rollback! Thanks for caring about this issue, if there were only more like you. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Glad to help. Raniere is pretty low on the notability scale if you look at his page view stats, so sadly its not surprising that few editors are paying attention.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Since your last rollback on KR's article "Gocubs", who has taken over for that "U2198something" person on the Bromfman sisterss articles, has made like five more edits on KR's article. Could you please roll those back as well? Awesome you're on the case, love ya! (By the way, I think the way to play these people, if they are more than one, is to play it all "Mr. Spock" robot cool). Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. It's very important to me not to be alone in this. But that's not the main point of this message. I have been trying for come time to get some help from univolved parties. Please, can you get help? You're a hero, wikilove you. Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination)

The nominator feels that three weeks without being improved is sufficient time for others to have fixed the addressable issues. Is it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it sends the wrong signal and sets a bad precedent when even the most polite WP:IDONTLIKEIT brings an article too soon back to an AFD. Might you feel an incubation for a few months could make better sense, specially as the article NOW is in far better shape than it was when it was renominated 20-days-after-a keep, and the nom himself stated there was no DRVable error in the close? This should serve to allow continued collaborative editing and could hold of the expected drama when some "fan" tries to recreate the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think whether it gets deleted or not will depend on what admin closes it, there's really not much to be incubated. If it gets deleted, I am going to repost the article on my blog and reap many views from it. And then it will eventually get recreated and Tarc and Black Kite will cry in their soup. And life goes on!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Still though, incubation might quell the repeated rude comments directed at 389 editors who for the most part improve articles to better serve the project. A slur against all, when less than 1 percent of that Project's membership even commented at the AFD, is saddening. Wikipedia is not about "the MOST notable"... we're about "notable enough". As Tarc and Black Kite wish to paint all 389 in a negative light, when in fact those few votes from any ARS member DID in fact use guideline and policy supported arguments, I find any acceptance of that incivility to be a sad commentary. I always thought the true strength of Wikipedia is in its willingness and ability to deal with those topics not covered in other encyclopedias. Suppposedly, we're here for the readers, not the editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points. I will favor incubation, but I don't want to be seen as suggesting its an end-run around the AfD. A few months is not going to hurt, though.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not an end run at all, as incubation IS specifically an option that may be considered per WP:Deletion policy... and following policy in efforts to improve the project is hardly an end run. And I held off suggesting it as that fact of the matter is that it ain't all that easy to get something out of incubation after its been put there.

I think the actual "end run" was the one that ignored the previous "no consensus to delete" and initiated a 20-day-later renomination. Quacks loudly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. imho. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

<--Hey Milowent, I saw your latest comment on the AfD go by on Recent Changes, and wanted to agree with you immediately, but my deletionist uber-Ich wouldn't allow me. If it's any consolation, the thing is headed full-speed for no consensus. Take care, and you too, MQS, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As certain editors take "no-consensus" as carte blanche to not seek DRV and renominate, such a close would spark Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th nomination) in a matter of few weeks, and raise both the cry "WP:NOTAGAIN" and its accompanying melodrama. There ARE other reasonable options that are worth discussion. My primary concern and the initial reason behind my keep was it being renominated prematurely in the first place. Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Come on Michael, no need to be exasperated with me ("sigh"); you know I didn't nominate it. NOTAGAIN says your keep "is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others." It's a good argument if the nomination is frivolous, but that is a judgment call, and since it's at AfD we have to deal with it. If it is kept, and gets nominated again in a couple of weeks, then we surely approach frivolity, but the AfD discussion shows that, well, the discussion wasn't done yet. I'm not saying your argument is a bad argument--I'm just not as interested in that point as you are. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That sigh was directed not at you, but at the tacit acceptance by many of a renomination that was done prematurely per WP:NOEFFORT and without allowing a reasonable time for improvements spoken as possible at AFD #2 to be made. A similar WP:NOEFFORT situation is at Billy Rosewood. The difference being that the editors at the original AFd wanted it merged, had a discussion about it on the article talk page, and renominated because they wish to force action on the merge they wish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, I just nominated a couple of articles for deletion; maybe you want to peruse my contributions and see if there's anything you think worth saving. There's maybe one, in my opinion, that might have a notability that I could not discern. Later, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  Save me the hunt. Which were those and when? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Carnism. That wouldn't have been much of a hunt--just follow the smell of meat. Ha, Milowent, that reminds me, in light of the recent comment I made there in response to your (valid point)--perhaps someone will create Meat poncho, which is a really funny term, IMO. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We do have Meat dress of Lady Gaga, which may have inspired the poncho? My, the world is sick.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Well, at least it's a GA. I got the 'meat poncho' from an ad with Bear Grylls for some deodorant. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Let's accumulate those international sources, please, in the section I've started at Talk:Jenna Rose. Even though the article survived AfD₃, international coverage would still be very helpful. On Talk, we can assess reliability, and even rehabilitate some sources which seem unreliable- I enjoy doing that. I'm asking because I didn't see any international sources, but you spotted some. -Lexein (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny about that Romanian site... --Lexein (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Les Golden

You sir, are my hands-down favorite for my much coveted "Wikipedia Humorist of the Year" award this year for this edit: [27] In fact, I think I'll write an article about this awards, and... Rklawton (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I look forward to purchasing your book. I will post a review on amazon, as that will be citable proof of notability!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed to over a half dozen textbooks - some of which are still in print and listed on Amazon. Perhaps you could review those and get the ball rolling :-) Rklawton (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Jose

fyi: Richard Jose; your User:Milowent/Richard Jose was very helpful. Slowking4: 7@1|x 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Milowent/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I am wondering,

has the Statue of Colonel Abraham de Peyster, originally placed in Bowling Green, New York City been moved? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on the work. The ;icture in the link that you sent shows it to be (opinion) a handsome work, I am surprised that there is not a park or corner somewhere in NYC that would not be improved by adding it there. We'll see. I see that you are coming at the work from the subject while I am from the artist. Carptrash (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Because I laugh every time I read your comments. Mathieas (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because I heard you could use a little pussy.

Mathieas (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK Mark Block

Do you want to nominate Mark Block? I've had a look at the article and it appears to be all good. Schwede66 18:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing it. Anyone is welcome to nominate--I might get it to tomorrow, which hopefully keeps me in the 5 day range. I need to navigate how to properly review other DYK noms as part of the deal, I think, if that new process was adopted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Trick or treat!

Whpq has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Bert Oliva DRV

Hi. Your comment at WP:DRV#Bert Oliva was that the AfD close was correct: so it was, but this appeal was actually against the G4 deletion of a revised article which its author (incorrectly in my view) thought addressed the notability issue. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I have clarified my comment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Ashland article

Since you voted on the first AfD for Occupy Ashland, just a note that it's up for a second deletion nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• hmm, already withdrawn, now they've likely cemented the article forever based on that ill-advised move.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping to rescue Dog daycare. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because

Every once in a blue moon I come across a random Wikipedia article that tickles my fancy, and when I do it's much more fun to share. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• haha, i love it, "a toilet catastrophe".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your efforts to save noteworthy topics from deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky's ethnicity.

The reference material that was provided above only proves my point. The book does state that his grandparents came form Poland, but it does not say that they were ethnic Poles. Don't forget that Poland before WWII was a multi-ethnic country where Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Jews and even Lithuanians (who commonly spelled their names in Polish) lived within the borders of the Polish state, and Poles only comprised 55 percent of the population. So, to say that his grandparents were "Polish immigrants" implies that they were ethnic Poles. So, I ask that the entry be amended to note that. The article should state: His paternal grandparents emigrated from pre-war Poland. Thus, acknowledging their nationality, but not necessarily their ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have a source that says they weren't Polish? I only scratched the surface to answer your inquiry, as you were correct that article didn't seem to source that to a clear reference. But I also saw references on google news to Paterno making Polish jokes regarding Sandusky when he retired.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination)

Please comment on the arguments for or against deletion, not on the editor. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'll comment on you if I like--if its relevant. My comment on otter was damn relevant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You may comment on my actions, or those of any editor, in the appropriate way and the appropriate place. AFD is not one of those places. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you trying to annoy me, Mr. Dingle?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban me?

Ban me for foolhardy nominations? Some of my nominations were helpful to delete some unnecessary articles! I've made excellent contributions to Wikipedia! If you don't like my thoughts of editing Wikipedia, that's just your opinion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, your contributions in AfD wasn't welcoming either. Besides, I've only nominated 3 articles. Foolhardy nominations? You are foolhardy, too, but that's just my opinion. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I may at times be foolhardy and will gladly admit it. Please take care with your deletion nominations, don't kill babies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales reports to you

You say you have reviewer and rollback and you say Jimmy reports to you. Can you back that up? --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Are you calling me a dirty liar?!?!?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Sandusky unauthorized page lock and edit

Milowent you clearly have an agenda here, I do not know why you reverted the earlier edit which shows that Sandusky is an American of mixed back ground, and not Polish first and foremost. Then you went ahead and locked the page despite that fact that there was no vandalism committed. I want you to explain your decision to do so. Also, your decision to change the wording of the section without adding any new material show clear bias. There was no reason whatsoever for you to make those changes and lock the page.

As you notice that the original edit mentioned his mother first, and the father second. But, you went ahead and changed the order of things, than start accusing other people of bias? Not only that, your edit is created a break in the content. Originally, the section mentioned his mother, than his father... and proceeded to discuss the father's accomplishments. You by accusing others of bias and to the detriment of the article went ahead and changed the order of how things are presented, in turn creating a confused and poorly worded section. Again, you accuses others of bias? Thus I request that the your last edit be reverted, since the change did not actually add anything to the section, and in the process diminished the clarity of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, i have an agenda. You know what it is? The truth. Its about calling crap on people trying to bury the fact that Sandusky has a self-identified Polish heritage. That's why Jerry and JoePa would make references to the "Polish nickel" defense and stuff like that; there's nothing nefarious about any of it, and it has nothing to do with the child molestation stuff. I cannot even recall if you are same editor who originally insisted that even though his paternal grandparents were from Poland, surely they likely were not of Polish heritage, which was simply rank speculation on that editor's part, since Sandusky's biography is absolutely clear about it. Why on earth would anybody try to distort and minimize Sandusky's Polish heritage? It makes no sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, btw, I did not lock the page, I do not have the rights to lock pages (I am not a wikipedia administrator). No doubt it was locked due to petty vandalism.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain my point of view, First and foremost Jerry Sandusky is an American first... then of Irish and Polish descent. If the family's Polish background was so important to them, why did they change the name to Americanize it. Second, I don't see any mention of Polish ancestry on pages related to other football players/coaches such as Mike Ditka, Don Majkowski, or Rob Gronkowski. Yet, in the case of child abuser Jerry Sandusky his polish background is highlighted and edited to maintain this bias. And, based on some outside conversations on the web about Sandusky's background, many people are going out of their way to say that he is not Russian or Jewish, so going on Wikipedia and making a big deal about his father's family coming from Poland makes perfect sense. The edit that you reverted was neutral because it mentioned his Irish-Polish roots with out focusing on any one side of his family background... your version crams words, "Polish and Poland" in just one sentence even more than before, and you went out of your way to moved the information on his father to the very top of the section, but the original edit had his mother listed fist. So, stop telling me that there is no bias... any person that has a bit of media savvy can see what is the real motive here.--76.118.227.161 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• And that motive is what? To prove that child molesters are Polish? This is absurd. His background is a factually reported item that is fine and desireable material for a biographical article; the wish to remove or minimize the information to somehow make Poles feel better--when it has no bearing on anything--is a serious problem to maintaining the integrity of history. I mean, you say "why did they change the name to Americanize it." Well, why don't you tell me after researching it, don't let speculation be your first argument as to why his Polish background, which receives some extended coverage in his biography, is irrelevant. If you want to talk about bias, it seems clear from your edit history that you have a pro-Polish bias and have even been blocked in that pursuit in the past.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did not answer my question... why did you change the order of the family's background. His Irish mother was first to be named in the section, and that was the case form the very first edit (I did not change that in anyway, no one did) But, you jumped in... accused other of bias, and moved the father's bio first. Why? What was changed to hide his Polish background before that? Yet, you accuse me and other of being a "polish protection brigade"? Any proper biography will list the mother fist, and so did this one until you changed it. So, please return the family background to the original order, and we won't have this issue. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with the high court of wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Racconish_and_ConcernedVancouverite_persist_in_quoting_from_non-existent_sources_and_undo_corrections. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 12:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michelin stars

As follow up to your research in the common outcomes of discussions/nominations about Michelin stars and Michelin starred restaurants, I have created User:Night of the Big Wind/Michelin restaurants. Could this be helpful in your opinion? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I might tweak it a bit (to note that a restaurant does not get a michelin star unless it was ALREADY notable as a general rule), but yes, I think these kinds of tools can be helpful. The editor corps around here is continually changing, but most fundamental debates like this have been had before, many times, so its good to have an essay somewhere to guide us. Keep up the good work!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

re Articles for deletion/The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry

Thanks for your contributions to this AfD and subsequent suggestions at the class project talk page. Looks like there was some kind of miscommunication there, given that 3 articles from the class have come up at AfD. PaintedCarpet (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Milowent. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Snarky comments

I can't imagine your snarky comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Lee (2nd nomination) adding any value to the discussion, but restoring it after the off-topic discussion about speedy deletion was moved to the talk page where it belongs is nothing short of disruptive. Please revert your edit, and try to contribute more constructively. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• My snarky comment was in response to your insinuation that I did not read your comment. I was rather butthurt by it. But I'd rather spend time improving content, so if you feel so strongly about removing the commentary, go ahead, I'll let it lie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Austin Mahone (singer)

Yes!!! You rock. It was so ridiculous that a whole series of people deleted the article without even looking into the obvious notability of the young man, and even made it impossible (for me anyway) to create the article.Keizers (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Dear Milowent, thanks your great contributions and good humour. Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

contribs

Hi - as it says at the top of my talkpage I have this contribution history also as Off2riorob - Happy holidays to you Milowent from - Youreallycan (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Happy holidays to you as well! Rob was not a bad sort.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for saying that. Same to you with Xmas glitter on. Youreallycan (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You have been reported to the No Cussing Club. Time to get out the lifebuoy! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in trouble now!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I got quite the laugh about it anyway, as well as your repartee to NW. Thanks for having a sense of humor about things. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hey Milowent, for an inclusionist like you I'm not going to the mall for a Christmas card, so you'll have to do with some stroopwafels I had laying around. Merry Christmas etc, and all the best in the new year. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• And the same to you (and to all). Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

An award

	Internets
	For this I award you five internets. Regards, Lara 06:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)