User talk:Minderbinder~enwiki

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived to User talk:Milo H Minderbinder/Archive/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I'd just like you to know...

...that you have an awesome username. That's really all. Thanks for your time. Axem Titanium 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Holiest art Thou

I would just like to express my gratitude to you for being a level-headed and sensible individual. It seems that we have some childish and immature contributers amongst us, and I just felt the need to show you praise for being a calm and logical individual. You have certainly displayed a great level of common sense and have made it easier for me during our mutual discussions.  Anticrash  talk  23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Up

Be a little more observant please. Actually work out what as been going on before you take the sanctimonious attitude. Michaelsanders 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. Michaelsanders 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). John Reaves 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below". Repeated changes to an unacceptable spelling, despite warnings to the contrary, is, in my book, vandalism. Michaelsanders 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we'll let the admins decide. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You do that. Just remember: 1)There is nothing at all in the 3RR policy regarding reversions to correct data 2)Editors are encouraged to remove false data. 3)Vandalism has to be removed. 4)I have been rude, and have apologised. You are being threatening, and have not apologised.

Have fun. Michaelsanders 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Catch-22

Wikipedia is a Catch-22 (We can do anything you can't stop us from doing). Yes, Milo I read too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.140.196 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear Milo, Turn to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and stop the propogration of all of these wiki-lies!

A irrelevant comment.--St.daniel 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Those were different reverts. The first two were to the previous version of 9/1. I then made a substantial rewrite of the article (which is not a revert). I reverted back to that 3 times. I have not exceeded 3RR. Michaelsanders 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Your username renders the circular nature of the debate at Talk:Barrington Hall particuarly ironic, no? MastCell 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of irony there. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

I really would prefer not to have to make an ANI report about you, so I am going to ask you very plainly not to blank the section you keep blanking again. Even amongst those who "agree" with you, there was established consensus to leave the section with fact tags while the source was being discussed, and there is established consensus that one of the items is not disputed at all. Note also that J. Smith does not appear to dispute the validity of the source now (although I had to remove his comment). Escalating from fact tagging the section to deleting it during discussion appears especially unhelpful, I think. Deleting the whole section again without discussion after new information was provided appears equally unhelpful.-Cindery 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy, anonymity, and WP:BLP

I advise you to read the WP:RS discussion about this, which links to the ANI discussion about this. At no time are you even permitted to speculate about whom I might be, or what relationship I have to a notable person. You can directly quote me, that's all.-Cindery 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery removed your comment from ANI citing BLP. I have reverted her but perhaps you might consider reviewing your comment in the light of her unhappiness. --Spartaz 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Milo, you need to write your comments sans speculation about who I am or whom I am "in contact" with--you may quote me, that is all. That means you probably need to read the discissions, if you want to use a quote. I think iwould also be helpful for you to discuss why you blanked the section after 1) there was agreement even among disputanst to leave it with fact tags 2) why you blanked it after J. Smith did not object to the identity verification of the source, which was the issue.-Cindery 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The administrators noticeboard is not the place to settle disputes. Please see resolving disputes for how to do that. However, there are merits to be found in the issues you have raised, and they will be taken under consideration. Steve block Talk 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to keep an eye on things, but you really need to let this go now. Steve block Talk 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Some people make a specialty out of provoking others, as a means of thinning/distracting the opposing ranks in a content dispute. But it appears as if there's an admin on the case, and continuing the dispute is only going to drag you down to others' level. Easier to preach than practice, I know. MastCell 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think you should consider filing an RFC on Cindery. I'm certainly open to co-signing. Steve block Talk 12:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ping, are you willing to co-sign an rfc? Steve block Talk 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Message Boards

Hi, I couldn't figure out how to start a discussion about an issue I had, but how is my community message board bad? I am not running it for commercial purposes. Its sole purpose is to start some community discussions in the area. I love to post messages on forums and I thought it would be a good idea for individual cities to have their own discussion group. I wasn't spamming, I was just trying to get my links out so that people knew about the site. My intentions are harmless; I just want people to be able to have discussions about their local community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Message Boards 2

So, there is no way I could add the link? I just want people to discuss the city.