User talk:Uncle Milty

Hello! On Wikipedia, I spend most of my time patrolling recent changes. If, while doing so, you believe I have made a mistake, please note: I am only human, I sometimes make mistakes. Edits I revert, I generally revert as they appear to be vandalism of some sort. If you believe I have made a mistake, just undo my edit, and leave me a message pointing it out to me here. Please don't leave me a template message, if I've made a bad edit, chances are it was a mistake. And, if I have reverted your edit, whether vandalism or a mistake, please don't abuse me with vandalism here. It will be quickly reverted. I am not here everyday. If you leave me a message and I don't respond immediately, don't panic! I will get back to you the next time I am online and see your message.

Welcome!

Hello, Uncle Milty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Slade (TheJoker) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wentworth (TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wentworth (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Uncle Milty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I am inquiring about some information on making my Wiki page. I created a page as there weren't any previous existing pages. I submitted it and you deleted, saying it was advertising or something. I honestly was just trying to make a wiki for myself as I am a musician and just wanted a page so when people wiki'd my artist name they could see that it is infact same person etc. It was just supposed to be informative and provide confirmation that said artists exists, That's all. I am no expert wiki page maker, however I do have a musicbrainz profile, and I need a wiki page formed in order to create an official VEvo account. Can you please help me out here and guide me in the right direction? I was told by my tunecore rep that a wiki page and music brainz page were required for set up. Thank you again for you time and help. -Melody — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelodyAnnmusic (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a listing service or a place to notify the world of your existence. Only people who meet the notabilty requirements will have articles. I don't know what your tunecore rep had in mind, but unless they only want musicians that have already achieved notability then he gave you the wrong advice. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Albion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Uncle Milty, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font> [[User:Uncle Milty|<font color="#000051">'''Uncle Milty'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Uncle Milty|<font color="#005c00">talk</font>]] <font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font></span> : | Uncle Milty | talk |

to

<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4"><span style="color:#fff">&#124;</span> [[User:Uncle Milty|<b style="color:#000051">Uncle Milty</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:Uncle Milty|<span style="color:#005c00">talk</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">&#124;</span></span> : | Uncle Milty | talk |

However, that won't work, as it exceeds the limit of 255 characters by 5. Switching from 6-digit to nearly identical 3-digit colors would do it:

<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4"><span style="color:#fff">&#124;</span> [[User:Uncle Milty|<b style="color:#005">Uncle Milty</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:Uncle Milty|<span style="color:#050">talk</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">&#124;</span></span> : | Uncle Milty | talk |

—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Kenneth Williams

Link please. If you're going to come out with pie in the sky statements, you ought really to back them up with diffs. If not, then I'm open to a discussion on the talk page. But please, do not edit war. It is the mark of a disruptive individual. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Simply look at the edit history of that article. Up until you removed the infobox two days ago the article has had an infobox since July of 2007. Over 10 years of editors not only allowing it to remain but also improving it by adding more information. WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the link you'll want to refer to regarding this type of consensus. If you'll take the time to read WP:INFOBOXUSE you'll see that whether or not an article has an infobox is wholly up to consensus, and you had zero consensus to remove it two days ago. Since then, you've been blatantly editwarring to keep it the way you want it. Now you can stop. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Pinging since your last revert makes it obvious that you hadn't read the above comment yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need me to explain what "consensus" means. Or do I? To aid you, see this. Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel you can rewrite the definition in the Cambridge Dictionary to fit your own POV? Can you also show me a diff of the consensus-forming discussion that took place to establish a need for this WP:DISINFOBOX? The fact it was not removed does not mean everyone was entirely happy with it. Again, if you can prove this was the case, fine, but I rather worry you can't. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Once again, I'll refer to you WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:INFOBOXUSE. The essay you link to is nothing more than that, an essay. A "consensus-forming discussion" is not a requirement for consensus on the contents of an article. Your singular desire to remove the infobox based solely upon a non-binding essay ignores previously determined consensus that it belongs. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny you should link to INFOBOXUSE. Ever heard of: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." -- Again, where was that discussion in 2007? Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". That's happened. You need to deal with it. It's a presumption and not set in stone. A presumption is not a substitute for an established consensus. Cassianto^Talk 23:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You are still welcome to join the discussion regarding this subject currently taking place on that article's talk page. Keeping the discussion to the subject at hand (the infobox's existence) would certainly help though. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You are too kind. I know I am, and I am. I'm just eager to know why you think the same rules don't apply to you, as they do to me. Cassianto^Talk 23:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about that. You are the one blatantly edit-warring (including two reverts of Admin's edits) within a 24 hour period. Anyone else would have been blocked by now. In fact, considering the repeated incivility of your edit summaries and other comments I'm surprised this account still has any privileges here at all. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Blatantly edit warring? You mean the block evading IPs? Maybe NeilN can enlighten you on that one. With regards to the two admins, they have been as disruptive as you have, and they should know better. Anyway, please stick to the content and not the contributor. Cassianto^Talk 00:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's been a long day and I'm off to bed. Please consider your behaviour and I'm sure tomorrow will bring more challenges and tribulations. Until then, toodle-loo. Cassianto^Talk 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My behavior has be honest and civil this entire time. Yours speaks for itself. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is non-negotiable. But as is so typical of an idiotbox guardianista, you flip the conversation towards me, the contributor, and away from the subject matter in hand, all because I'm asking you some rather awkward questions. To date, you are still unable to answer me the following:

1. Where was the consensus forming discussion in 2007 to have the infobox implemented?
2. Why do you think a tangible consensus is only needed when removing a idiotbox, but that a mythical, make-believe, and pretend consensus works when an infobox is in place?
3. Now you've discovered EDITCONSENSUS and SILENCE, why do consider the gap in time between implementation and removal to be more substantive when compared to the gap in time between removal and discussion?
4. Finally, why do you consider the infobox that existed to be in any way a benefit to the readers when compared to the lead section? Why do you insist on treating our readers like imbeciles? Cassianto^Talk 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is the only reason I've seen for you to keep pulling the infobox from that article. You haven't come up with any other reason or any consensus to have it removed. Now, on to your points:

1. Where was the consensus forming discussion in 2017 to have the infobox removed?
2. Why do you think a tangible consensus is only needed when adding an infobox?
3. The first is almost 10 years and many many editors, and the second is less than a year and many fewer editors.
4. quoting WP:INFOBOX (which is actual policy, not just an essay):

• A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout
• Emission of machine readable metadata
  • Infoboxes about people, places, buildings, organisations, products, species and dated events (battles, sports fixtures, record releases, etc) and more emit microformats; see Wikipedia:microformats
  • Data held in structured format is made available to third party tools such as DBpedia and Freebase directly from Wikipedia database dumps
  • Article editors do not need to know anything about metadata standards or markup
  • Increasing integration with Wikidata

--| Uncle Milty | talk | 08:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why do I need a consensus to remove the box when those adding it, don't? Maybe you can answer that question first? I am operating under WP:BRD. The box was added Boldly in 2007; I Reverted it ten years later; and you and your friends (two of which are administrators) failed to Discuss the matter, opting instead to egg on on edit war. Also, your selective answering seems not to have mentioned the following text, taken from the INFOBOXUSE policy: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Any ideas? Your level of debate is becoming more desperate and pathetic as the days roll on. Cassianto^Talk 13:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Your level of debate is becoming more desperate and pathetic as the days roll on." And your debate technique becomes more transparent with every addition. You see, many of us Yanks have gotten good at spotting the standard GOP "debate" techniques (projection, ad hominem, creative language, name alteration, childish whining, topic avoidance, etc.) and so far you've used a larger number than should be necessary in what is essentially a simple discussion of a minor issue. What's even more interesting is how similar the language and techniques are among those other editors that are supporting your view. It's almost as though there was an organized effort to disrupt Wikipedia or something.

When you want to be honest and civil in the discussion of this issue, then so will the rest of us. In the meantime, you and your buddies are just wasting everyone's time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! - In Germany, we still celebrate. Nice to meet you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)