User talk:Miltopia

Welcome!

Hello, Miltopia, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how TROLL!!!! is such a powerword around here, it makes me giggle. MONGO, all you have to do is like, not stalk me, and you won't be bothered by me. Never once have I sought interaction with you, you just found me because you have some kid's userpage watchlisted and got pissed when I tried to give him a laugh. Just go away and save yourself a lot of grief. Miltopia 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad at him for reverting you, he thought you were one of the vandals, probably. It's just that he said you're "obvios a sock account", you're TROLLING, and you'll be banned if TROLL anymore that is annoying. Don't feel threatened by him, just go have fun doing whatever it is you do. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hellol

HAI-K37 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thx for the cock! Miltopia 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem, I know you like it! It looks good!-K37 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

=' 0

Don't leave! --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

MILTOPIA NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-K37 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know you but don't leave, you're cool 8)

It's usually not well-looked upon to be an INTERNET DETECTIVE like that, you shouldn't let it bother you Voretus^talk 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Furries

Don't let them get you down. They made some edits to my user page, and I intend to leave them there as a mark of honour. If you abandon Wiki, it means that they've won. Lankiveil 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

(ps: yes, "furcruft" is a bit gross =) )

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop, or I will not hesitate to block you for disruption

I'm not kidding.--MONGO 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dude, did you not read your talk page? Miltopia 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games with you, an ED troll. Allow me to edit in peace, or I will ensure I can do so.--MONGO 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, taking a tag off of an article is not hurting you, nor is de-redding a link. Could you just chill out? You're inventing hostilities where there are none. Trust me, it is not my goal to facilitate interaction with you. Miltopia 07:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure...you show up on Dysgenics out of the blue, then twice remove [1], [2] a redlined link that I wanted to stay in an article I just created as I plan on writing an article that will fill that link...in fact, I was planning on doing so until you started this nonsense...now that I don't have to deal with your stalking, I can resume doing something useful.--MONGO 07:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|banned for "trolling", did no such thing}} Ugh, I got blocked for removing a tag of an article, then de-redlinking another, then asking for help in dissolving a misunderstanding. I've been doing pretty well editing here lately, even reverting vandalism. To be blocked indefinitely for such a silly thing hardly seems beneficial, especially considering I was seeking help to defuse conflict. Can someone unblock me? Miltopia 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that pretty much all of my edits have been to articles or talk pages of people that I know off-site. So I'm definitely not trolling. Give me a break... Miltopia 07:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're connection with ED trolls and the coincidence of following MONGO around to articles you have not edited is not believable. --Tbeatty 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited two article that he's edited.

• 1. An article that I ws told about off-site. I didn't even know MONGO had edited it. WTF.
• 2. An article that yes, I found in his contribs. Because he rollbacked me elsewhere and I was seeing if he was rollbacking me everywhere, and the words "new article" caught my eye, so I decided to read it. Sheesh, I even said it was nice. All I did was remove a redlink.
• I don't have eleventy zillion edits, but I have enough unrelated to MONGO that to say I've set up this acocunt to troll MONGO is ridiculous. I even archived his previous comments because I DIDN'T want interaction with him. He's creating a problem that doesn't really exist here. It's all just a misunderstanding; I have no interest in MONGO. Miltopia 07:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not believable Tbeatty 07:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, see my comments in section above this one.--MONGO 07:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that "apeshit" comment was rude and I removed it later (see my own archive). BUt my intention there was to talk to Alex, not MONGO. Miltopia 07:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've re-blocked. Since immediately after being blocked this user created User:Gentgeen Militopia wheel war vs MONGO, I think any reasonable assumptions of good faith have run out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WHAT?!?!?! OK, I'd better look into this. That was certainly not me. Miltopia 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For one thing, I would've spelled it right. Miltopia 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

May not be the same editor...but most likely just another ED troll looking to be disruptive.--MONGO 08:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Very likely, since I informed them I was unbanned. Looks like I have been trolled. Miltopia 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Miltopia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since immediately after being blocked this user created User:Gentgeen Militopia wheel war vs MONGO - clearly false, see below

Decline reason:

Lets wait on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Miltopia to see. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Um, I couldn't have made that username while blocked. For one thing, I wouldn't have know who did the unblocking. Miltopia 08:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Boooo. Miltopia 08:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Last Time (hopefully)

{{unblock|Checkuser turned up unrelated, surprise surprise}}

So it turns out I'm not the world's biggest idiot and the account is not mine. Can I be unblocked now? Good grief. Miltopia 09:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked, at least for now

Full unblock summary was truncated: WP:AGF -- This needs more discussion. User does not appear to be a blatant troll or vandal, and checkuser confirms the "stalker" account that showed up later was on a different ISP -- with all respect, I'm not convinced they're the same person. Please direct further drama to AN(/I) before reblocking; at the very least, I think this one needs some discussion. Luna Santin 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but "more discussion on ANI" is what got me banned in the first place, so I don't think that's a good idea. It's obvious I don't need blocking, let's all just drop it. Thanks again for the unblocks, both of you. Miltopia

Alrighty. At this point, it seems you'll remain unblocked. As you might have already expected, it seems remaining unblocked will rely on staying as far away from MONGO as possible (especially anything that even might be interpreted as harassment or stalking, by happenstance or otherwise). Hopefully that's acceptable to you; after tonight's little drama, I have a hunch you were planning on self-imposing such a condition in any case. Feel free to let me know if you have any further concerns or questions in this regard. Luna Santin 15:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What policy did Miltopia break that would get him banned in the first place? I didn't see one cited anywhere, and I don't think he did anything that could even be interpreted as deserving a ban (assuming we ignore WP:AFG). --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't, which is why I was unblocked. So, it's all good now :-) Miltopia 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of an edit

I was testing User:ais523/votesymbols.js; Image:Votesymbols.js-enhanced SfD.png shows what it should look like. The script passed that test fine, but it seems to be glitching on something and I can't figure out what it is. Anyway, I needed that text to appear somewhere for the tests, so the history of the Sandbox seems like a reasonably harmless place to put it. --ais523 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, haha. Well, thanks for the laugh! Miltopia 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re:Hi

I apologise, I was slightly overwhelmed with reverting lots of vandalism and the filter must have picked your edit up. You are correct in removing it from the article. Sorry about that, I'll try to be a bit more careful next time. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's ok, I was just making sure there weren't circumstances I wasn't aware of, like if the uploader were actually the one who was in the picture (making it ok). Miltopia 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I have been stalking you and wanted to express my sympathy for the harassment :( Voretus^talk 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• OMG YOU'RE STALKING ME?! IT'S BAN TIME! Anyway... no comment on harassment ;-) but thanks for your support. Miltopia 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hurrah! :D-K37 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Praise Jesus! Miltopia 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV

You asked me about it on my talk page, turns out there is one now (link). --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 04:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

“the Internet” v. “internet”

See, for example, IETF RFC1129 (Internet Time Synchronization: The Network Time Protocol) for a plain statement on the difference between “the Internet” and “internet”. It is an evident fact that capitalization cannot be heard; no one should have to source that point. —12.72.71.166 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• What? Miltopia 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oic, will reply on your talk page. Miltopia 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Emerald Triangle Kamen Rider X California State Prison - Sacramento Charles W. Dean Bridge Moses Gunn Kamen Rider Larc Hiroshi Fujioka Affectional orientation Kinsey scale Paul Scheuring The Bugs Bunny Birthday Blowout Kamen Rider Blade (game) Santa Clarita Valley Space madness Pansexuality Gold Country The Warriors Beep (sound) Inglés de escalerilla

Cleanup Customer interface Antelope Valley Namlish Merge Manglish Genotype Western Athletic Conference Add Sources Volapuk encoding Bakersfield, California Huzzah Wikify Software product management Visalia, California Highland English Expand Bill Dana DishTV Stein Aage Hubred

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's like a cat.... on a monorail!

Hai; it's nice to see you around. Let me know if you ever need help with adminly type stuff, and remember to steer clear of whatsisname, if you can. If you guys get into it, I might not be able to help you out... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request

I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidden). Thanks. (Radiant) 10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SOUVENIR

I'LL BRING YOU BACK SOME MOONSHINE NEXT TIME I GO TO THE MOON. --MOONGOER 06:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dem attic

I have again disabled the link to drama on dem attic. You are welcome to edit here, but please leave the drama there. This matter has been discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop#Miltopia_incident. I don't think you need to get involved unless you think it serves some purpose of yours as the issues involve the behavior of other users. You seem to be editing in an unremarkable manner, which is fine. Fred Bauder 14:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm getting involved all right. I'm sick of MONGO asking everyone and their mother th help him get me banned. Now that he's pulling his wild accusations into an unrelated arbcom case, I've been emailed about it and it's why I've come back, although I've had more interesting things to attend to first. About the link, I just didn't see any reason to disrupt the context of the conversation, but it's fine that it's disabled, I'm certainly not here for anything sinister. Milto LOL pia 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent drinking

Dude, that picture of the end result of drinking too much makes me nauseous. lol-K37 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's not the only result. My fursuit was in shambles from teh buttsechs! Milto LOL pia 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Want to borrow mine? It's foxy :3-K37 23:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No thanks, I'm more of a gorilla-snake-antelope-raven-shark-mongler type. *ahem apparently i'm a much more cretive furry than you cough* Milto LOL pia 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • OTHERKIN GTFO-K37 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question re "trolling"

Hello, Miltopia. First of all, yes, I am female, as my signature suggests.

With regard to the GTBacchus edit that was reverted and that you restored, first I might mention that I have always felt that GTBacchus was one of the administrators who most respected the dignity of other editors. I have seen him in the past showing great kindness to people with whom he disagreed; he has also been helpful to me. I have recently noted with sadness and bewilderment what seems to be his inexplicable failure to show solidarity with or appropriate support for a victim of absolutely appalling harassment. Nevertheless, I do not by any means equate him with the trolls who take pleasure in those frightful attacks on MONGO and on others, and who arrive at Wikipedia to post links to that site and to taunt MONGO.

You asked me if his posting of obscenities to your user page was trolling. It's something I'd personally have ignored, but since you ask, I'll say that I believe that it was inappropriate. It's not something I'd block for; it's not something I'd want to lose a friend over. But it was definitely not to my taste. But then, I don't suppose everything I do would be to his taste. The main point, as he would certainly say, is to treat others as human beings.

It is possible to make an inappropriate edit without being a troll. I don't think it's possible to do it repeatedly without being a troll. So if GTBacchus makes a joke edit to your user page which many would find inappropriate, and then goes off and makes dozens of good edits, helping people, doing administrative chores, editing articles, I'm not going to waste a second thought on the obscene edit. He wasn't making it on my page, and I'm sure he wouldn't.

Anyway, the examples I gave were not of your reverting the editor who reverted GTBacchus, but rather of you adding "lol u faggot" and "dicks". As far as I know, they did not originate with GTBacchus, but with you. Regarding your "Kelly Martin kicks ass" post, I'm not familiar with the expression. Despite the "full support" words that came after it, I was not 100% sure whether that expression was meant as an insult or a compliment. Containing the word "ass"", and coming straight after "faggot" and "dicks" (and an image of vomit), it did not come across as the most inoffensive way of expressing support.

Your acknowledgment on the evidence page that the link was "highly inappropriate" and "very unfunny" makes me inclined to think better of you, after having seen only flippant responses to the victim in the last few weeks. Now comes my big question — why didn't you remove it? AnnH ♫ 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, I want to point out that "kicks ass" is a compliment, even if a somewhat vulgar one.
• Second, I want to point out that the vulgar edits to my userpage did not originate from me, although I did invite them myself. I was reverting removals of them (via popup/rollback, so it was probably mistaken for vandalism).
• Third, the ":-D lol" was a reply to Ashley Y's comment, not the link.

As far as not removing the link goes... well, I thought it was considered rude to remove talk page comments. Especially considering how Ashley replied without removing it. It was nothing malicious. Milto LOL pia 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for your question. This will have to be short, as I'm very caught up in the real world. I thought I had explained above that there is a difference between making a single inappropriate edit to a user page, and having a pattern of doing so. I didn't say that GTBacchus's edit needed no explanation. I said that he owed me no explanation. You don't owe me any explanation either. If GTBacchus made such edits every day (which is not the case) and if evidence had been submitted to the ArbCom that MONGO had treated GTBacchus as a troll, then it would be reasonable to provide diffs to show that MONGO had some cause to think he was a troll. In fact, on reflection, I think I was wrong to add those diffs, as the case is not about you, but about whether or not MONGO was really as unreasonable as some people have accused him of being. What you did after he blocked you isn't really relevant, so I've removed it. You may wish to remove your response to that bit as well, as it looks a bit silly to have a response without the thing it's responding to. Or you may prefer to leave your complete response there but add a link to the bit I have removed. I have no interest in seeing you banned, and in any case, that isn't even proposed. My interest is in preventing (if possible) an unjust ruling against someone who was subjected to some pretty horrific harassment and reacted the way most people would.

I have a lot more to say, but simply don't have time. By the way, some people have very strong preferences as to whether talk page discussions should be kept unfragmented. I don't really mind either way. Feel free to reply here or on my talk page — that is, if you want to reply. AnnH ♫ 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, this is fine. I'm not picky. And I don't mean to like browbeat you over your evidence - it's your evidence after all - it just struck me as a little "overcautious" of trolling. I commented out my section at your suggestion. Milto LOL pia 12:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this barnstar for never losing your sense of humour, even in face of adversity. Come to my house, you can sleep with my sister. IICATSII punch the keys 08:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

blatant vandalism tag

tone it down, especially with the vandalism-only account warning

It's not a "vandalism-only account" warning, it's a "blatant vandalism" warning -- as, you know, the tag is actually called. And since it WAS blatant vandalism -- no matter how misguidedly encouraged it was -- it was perfectly appropriate. If you feel a "blatant vandalism" warning tag is inappropriate for warning about blatant vandalism, perhaps you can take it up with WP:TFD and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Edits to my userpage that I specifically invite and allow are not vandalism. I was aware of the edits and approved. He was AIMing me as he did it! Milto LOL pia 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Miltopia; hi Calton. "Vandalism" is defined at Wikipedia as "edits made in a deliberate intent to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It's pretty clear to me that the intent in this case was to share a joke with a friend, not to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. There are long-time Wikipedians in perfectly good standing, admins even, with "vandalize here" sections on their user pages. I see no harm in allowing these guys to "pass notes". If similar edits find their way anywhere where people would expect to find encyclopedic content, then please feel free to show no mercy, Calton. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks GT. I wish I wasn't causing you so much trouble :( I would not be hurt in the least if you just banned me to save yourself the task of making sure I'm behaving myself, haha Milto LOL pia 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I could indef block you and then say I did it for the lulz, but that's not the culture here. In reply to your message at my talk page, I am following the ArbCom case, from a distance. I don't want to tell you what to do - I think you can figure out how Wikipedia works just fine. If I have one suggestion, it would be that you try to stay out of politics. If you can't stay out of politics, I'd at least advise you to make a couple of good old fashioned article-space edits for every edit relating to any controversy. That's a suggestion I find it hard to follow myself, but when I succeed, I find my time here more rewarding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. I've spent a lot of time trying to make sure I stay unbanned and haven't been doing much editing, so I hit "random article". I ended up on an article that I ended up proposing for deletion. I'm not sure whether to call this a success or a failure... Milto LOL pia 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, that's good work. Down with cruft, right? Although, you wanna google something like that first, sometimes you find a couple of independent write-ups. For jazz pianists, we don't need scholarly journals. If you find some sources, you can check that the article isn't reporting stuff that they don't back up. I tend to just toss the references into an "External links" section, but some people like to show off and do inline referencing.
      • Random page hockey can be fun; I should play it more often. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Reading your nomination more carefully, it looks like you found those same sources, and weren't too impressed. I should stob kibbitzing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I must've missed those, they seem alright. Good catches, they're good enough that make me question the unverifiability of the guy. And by all means kibitz, I'm terrible at Wikipedia Chess :-) Besides, better to hear it from you than someone saying "OMFG ED TROLL DIE DIE DIE" --Milto LOL pia 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

Milto LOL pia

This will be my new sig once the serious business is over. Milto LOL pia 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Daniel Brandt

I'm sorry, but have you not been keeping track of what Mr. Brandt has done? He was extremely uncivil, to the point of outing people's personal addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, encouraging stalking, making legal threats, engaging in unsubstanciated attacks on editors and admins of Wikipedia, and breaking multiple policies. If you're going to edit something out that is the truth simply because it doesn't soft-pedal what happened, at least look it up first. I have reverted your edit. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, just after about two minutes of searching , I found

• Here he suggests that the editors are irresponsible and tend towards ego trips. This to a newspaper, and it's representing pretty much anyone who edits at Wikipedia.
• His over the top legal threats are all over Wikipedia, and

[3] [4] and, oh, what the heck, let's just look at his block log, which is littered with blocks for legal threats. Rude legal threats, even. Those aren't uncivil?

• You could always look at the hivemind page where he basically reveals everyone's real names , photographs, birth dates, and even decides to go into a few cases of transexuals.

I'm saying all this to point out that Daniel Brandt (no matter how unfair the fact of him having a somewhat inaccurate bio) has been uncivil. His incivility and legal threats can be found in his user contributions, on his lengthy diatribes at the Wikipedia Review, in various interviews where he's dismissed Wikipedia as run by "clowns" and on his websites. I'm sorry if you feel I'm too incompetant to qualify to revert you. As for JS, it means "JavaScript" and it's a tool that more experienced users use to conduct small reverts. I don't do things manually unless a level of finesse is required. I personally don't give a flip either way how it's worded, but there shouldn't be any whitewash of the fact that Daniel Brandt was treated uncivilly by a few trolls and proceeded to get himself permabanned for a still-continuing campaign of malice. Good day. Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I think you'll find I don't have any of the contempt for you you seem to think I do. However, I do want to point out that the article you wrote mentions nothing about the arguments being uncivil. And you can't go off Brandt's comments himself, it would be an original interpretation of his tone. You need a source to say he was rude. Milto LOL pia 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

... :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I sorta figured that was the case, and did that AGF thingy. But it would be more fun if we had a big flame war. pouts theatrically Anyway, I'll concede the point on Brandt. I see the arguement isn't if he was uncivil, but that it's basically self-referencing to find most of the evidence that he was, which I kind of shot in the foot with my own post. No problems. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone nuked the sentence entirely. Ir restored it and was gonna argue the point on the talk page, but I had forgotten to log in, and didn't get to the explanation before the revert. So... screw it. Milto LOL pia 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

codes

I've noticed you know a thing or two about the wiki codes, would u b able to help me out on a new look project page. I hope to give a few project pages a facelift that would have them looking like the main page. check User:FrummerThanThou/jew, its my attempt so far. frummer 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

hello miltopia

Hello, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I guess this account won't last long, either.Jumboz1Idwhale 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See upage. The greeter for the above upage (forgot psswd) seems like a most decent chap.Jumboz1eyedwhale 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

'Sup

:3-DESU 03:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments. :) Good suggestions. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RIP Miltopism 2005-2007?

Miltopia, have you really left ED forever? If so, it is too bad because you were one of my favorite editors there. The place definitely won't be the same without you. Remember it's not the beginning and the end that counts, but the dash in between that truly matters, and that's where you succeeded. — MichaelLinnear 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• My grandma bought a book for my mom with that poem in it for Christmas. She read it out loud and started crying. Loldongs. Milto LOL pia 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia hat"

Hey Miltopia, sorry to have to lecture you but you need to wear your "Wikipedia hat" while editing here, and you need to avoid vandalism in your edit summaries, for instance these [5] [6] which are inappropriate. Thanks, dvdrw 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, my bad. I guess that was kinda dumb. Milto LOL pia 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please especially keep that sort of thing out of edit summaries, which stay in the logs forever. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, my bad. I guess that was kinda dumb. Milto LOL pia 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Just a heads up about 3RR; ie repeatedly adding the {{unsourced}} tag. Thanks  Glen  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And whata bout repeatedly removing it? WIth no edit summary? ANd then protecting the page to win a content dispute? Milto LOL pia 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• All right, it is unprotected. There's no need to make accusations about admins trying to "save face" or anything like that. Please don't do that in the future, it just escalates conflicts. Thanks, Titoxd^(?!?) 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please forgive me for bristling, but I'm a man of my word - a part time troll (not here), but an honest person nonetheless. Bashing me on my integrity by saying I'm "vandalizing" doesn't really make my day. Hm, I guess I should leave it at that... Milto LOL pia 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also question your timing of this particular editing project. Didn't you anticipate that picking the day on which the article had two frivolous AfD nominations to announce that you were going to "waste" much of the content was going to produce concern, even if the changes you had in mind are in good faith and consistent with project standards? Newyorkbrad 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. The time for improvement is now, not later. Especially when all the concerns raised by the AfDs are still in everyone's memory. Milto LOL pia 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:Point not because I am implying anything, but instead for your given reason. [7] ~Rangeley (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What am I trying to prove though? Looks to me like I'm learning from others' concerns. It is as bad idea to have self-references with regards to a websites "purpose". There's nothing "POINT" about it. It's merely learning. THe sentence was bad in teh ED article and it's bad in this one. You're not even looking at the content while reverting, you're just trolling me and questioning my motives. Milto LOL pia 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"this was almost word-for-word something in teh former ED article that caused problems." ~Rangeley (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's the edit summary I used. WHat's your point? Milto LOL pia 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To be honest I'd normally block someone straight off the bat for that, but I'm far happier with this result. Thanks :)  Glen  05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so am I :) I kept bracing my self for the block message whenever I clicked edit after I learned I really was in the wrong, but I'm glad it never came. Milto LOL pia 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on January 22 2007 to Uncyclopedia

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Unblock

Ok, is a 3RR block instated 20 hours after my last non-rvv edit to the page really going to be of any use? As I've said before, I've misunderstood the 3RR (thinking unrelated reverts didn't count) and have stopped editing the page. A block at this point isn't accomplishing anything to prevent edit warring because I've already stopped editing that page. See #Uncyclopedia above, specifically the bottom couple of comments. See also User talk:Glen S#3RR.

The edit war/issue was a misunderstanding and has already been solved. This block seems a little pointless. Milto LOL pia 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of contrition there and I don't buy this "misunderstood 3rr". However, you have sensible people speaking for you so I'll lift the block. Leave the page alone until the block would have ended, though William M. Connolley 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

SInce the block occurred 20 hours after my last edit, wouldn't 24 hours after my last edit be sufficient? The lateness of the block is a little hindering. And I wish you'd reconsider my sincerity in "buying" the rule, since I did halt the editing afterwards, but I appreciate the unblock regardless. Thanks! Milto LOL pia 09:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Please stop pushing William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia chess

Hi, Miltopia. I noticed your unblock message, and I've left a note with the blocking admin, asking him to reduce (or just lift) it, pretty much for the reason you mentioned, that you had already stopped reverting at the article in question.

I thought this might be a good time to drop off a Protip: try and stick to something like a one-revert rule or a zero-revert rule when it comes to tags, like {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}}. If you add a tag, and someone removes it, don't re-add it until you've had a talk page interaction with them. The best is to just make a case for it on the talk page, and then someone else sees what you said and puts the tag back in, or deletes the uncited fact, or (best case) finds a dubya-pee-are-ess citation.

It's great that you're trying to hold the Uncyclopedia article to encyclopedic standards, but as you've seen, Uncyclopedia is kind of a pet project of a lot of Wikipedians. As such, its article is a good place to practice stepping very lightly, like a ninja. Another good trick is this: if you make several changes in an edit, and it gets reverted, try making them one-by-one in smaller edits, and giving each several hours to see if it sticks. That's a good way to make incremental improvements while isolating controversial spots.

You've been doing good work here, and I'm sure you'll be unblocked soon. Take care, and let me know if you have any questions I can help with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very sound advice - I definitely need to slow down to avoid panicking others. Thanks a lot for looking out for me, I had just gone to IRC to ask someone to alert him to my talk page when I saw your message there ^_^ Milto LOL pia 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

That was well said. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although I fear they won't listen to me... if only there was someone who really understood ED on arbcom *nudge nudge* Milto LOL pia 10:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gone, eh?

So you've decided to walk before they make you run? Do drop by occasionally; I reckon I'll be around. Maybe you've helped convince a person or two that the kids from the other side of the tracks aren't all three-headed monsters with acne, or whatever. (I'm pretty well convinced it's almost all furries on both sides, buncha weird were-gerbil/griffin/tigresses...) For the possibility that that may be true, thanks. Good luck to ya. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar?

[9] The summary states it to be a grammar edit, but the only thing I see is the removal of "The article on the Middle Ages is written in a parody of old English." Did you intend to remove this, or was it an accident? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what I did there, but it wasn't intentional. I'll revert it right now. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwise

Remember that business about wearing your ED hat on ED and your Wikipedia hat here? I'd like to suggest that it is unwise to welcome cplot socks here [10]. Thanks. Thatcher131 07:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. If it helps, I had just been beaten to an attempted revert on that particular edit he made to AN. Milto LOL pia 09:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ED

I just think it's despicable for anybody to be attacking a teenager like ED is doing. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your feelings and I'm sorry that my presence only seems to remind you of ED. Still, I keep them separate, hands-down. I hope there's no hard feelings over that. Milto LOL pia 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I was hoping you might have some influence over there to get that garbage deleted or at least modified. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, they hate me over there. Sorry :( Milto LOL pia 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • they hate you on Ed cos you were unfunny and a crybaby, PLZ to be learning what satire is

K37

Actually, the problem here is that I was made aware of several attempts to link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica from a user subpage. That subpage has since been deleted, but per Enforcement #1 of the ArbCom decision, links to ED are subject to removal and blocking of the users posting them. --Coredesat 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another admin take a look at the situation, given that deleted pages are presumably involved. --Coredesat 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A few questions and comments

Hello, Miltopia. I've been thinking about your e-mail for the last day or so, and I want to ask you:

1. Was there anything confidential in it, that you wouldn't want me to post back on your talk page? (It didn't seem that there was anything particulary private, but I want to be sure.)
2. A slightly nasty question and I wouldn't post it if I thought it would hurt you, but I'm posting it because I think it would be good for you to reflect on this: Do you think that an administrator who receives a private e-mail from an enthusiastic ED editor should feel confident in replying, thereby giving that editor his/her e-mail address and IP address?
3. I'd like you (no need to oblige, of course), to read this and then to go to ED, and look at Rick James's contributions and his block log. I'd be very interested in knowing your opinion. If you wish, you can e-mail me again. You might not wish to answer that in public, since an acknowledgment here that you think it's really funny (LOL, WHOOPDEDOO, etc.) might bring more admin hostility in your direction, and if you don't think it really funny — well, you see from Rick's block log on the other site what happens to people who show some shred of decency. But of course, you're under no obligation to reply to this at all.

Concerning your e-mail, I am certainly prepared to accept some of what you say. If you're prepared to read some advice, you'll find some here, and in the second paragraph of this, though neither post is addressed to you.

I have seen some evidence in your contributions at ED that you're not as bad as some of the other editors there, but I'm afraid that there's enough there that is bad — that involves hurting and violating other human beings. I'm not prepared to say what that evidence is (good or bad), as I don't want to draw attention on Wikipedia to any of the attacks there. If there were ever any case against you here, I would be prepared to mention it privately to the Arbitration Committee, though. (I mean the good evidence.) And for the record, I agreed with your recent unblocking, as the actual block was implemented many hours after you had stopped reverting, though you did not, on those grounds, have a right to be unblocked.

By the way — this is a rather nasty comment, but again, I think it's good for you to reflect on such things — I couldn't help noticing that you use an e-mail address that protects your identity. Smart of you to protect yourself from something that's so hilariously funny when it happens to others. (LOL dongs etc.) Or am I being unfair? I'm prepared to consider the possibility, but perhaps you should consider why such thoughts might come to me (and others) in the first place. Musical Linguist 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is going to take some thinking and may be a day or two, so I'll try to avoid major editing until then. Milto LOL pia 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Check it

[11] Rather ironic when names like User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington eventually get promoted to admin. No? —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, love the sig. But it doesn't blink anymore, at least not in IE. Did they turn off this feature? Check my sighallofshame. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I never got around to making it blink actually :( Maybe shortly after certain users forget about me I'll do it. Milto LOL pia 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go Miltopia!

File:Bitchstar.JPG

Have a Bitchstar! I hope you like it :3-from K37 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this anything good?

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2006/75/dean.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MsHyde (talk • contribs) 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Inquiring minds

You used to have category furry on your userpage. Are you a furry? Wesienggoldenrend 09:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I added it there as a joke. He didn't seem to mind, though...-from K37 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lol. Milto LOL pia 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You like to wikistalk people. Wesienggoldenrend 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That's the going urban legend, yes. Milto LOL pia 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The question at hand, before you completely changed the topic remains. While I must admit your changing of topic was quite a brilliant move and well thought out. You do things quite skillfully that most others, lessers, never think of. Still, I must ask are you in fact a furry? You clearly have some ingeniuitous ways of getting of out of, but if you would state your answer, I would appreciate it. Wesienggoldenrend 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well thought out? It took two clicks to figure out what I already knew: that you had no other edits and were a sleeper account. If that's well thought out for you, you have much more to learn than whether or not I'm a furry. Milto LOL pia 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid my account is new. My talk page does not yet exist. I do not yet have a welcome message. I would humbly be so honored if you were the one who gave me it. Thank you Miltopia. Wesienggoldenrend 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea

Good idea[12]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I thought about adding it to the RfC template to, but I added it to one and got reverted :( Milto LOL pia 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people fear what they do not understand. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick Q

Hey, been looking at a certain arbcom case and am trying to make sure it doesn't blow up into yet another ED fiasco - that'll only end up as trouble for me. May I ask what comment of Thatcher's prompted this? Thanks, Milto LOL pia 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

At User talk:Newyorkbrad#Philwelch RFAR, Thatcher131 commented that my "repeated addition of the questions could fairly be interpreted as trolling" and that I should be "admonished for trolling on Werdna's RFA," so I inquired as to whether Thatcher131 also believes that the three other editors (including you) who restored Konstable's question were "trolling" (which, of course, is a bad-faith act). To be clear, I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing whatsoever. —David Levy 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you weren't, I'm just trying to make sure my name doesn't come up without good reason. One arbcom case was more than enough for me. Milto LOL pia 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do arbitration clerks normally comment on the case and point fingers to "trolling" based on evidence? I am gracefully unfamiliar with the system. Milto LOL pia 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't observe these procedures very closely, so I'm not sure. I hope not. —David Levy 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this! (I know that you didn't want to involve yourself in the proceedings.) You might want to mention that "trolling" was the word used by Phil in his summary when blocking me (so as not to leave the impression that Thatcher131 pulled the term out of thin air). —David Levy 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will. Still, shame on Thatcher for calling it such, even if Philwelch said it first. He should know better than to assume such ill will on your guys' part, and for him to say such a thing in a case he is impartially clerking" is really not cool. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment en passant

Heh, the thread you started on WP:ANI... was that really that necessary? I'm not trying to be critical or anything, but it seems a little frivolous seeing noone has thrown around any sockpuppet allegations yet. I don't think preemptively clearing the air was the best way to go, but whatever. Anyway, you have nothing to worry about if he isn't your sock - and I believe you 100% :)-from K37 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, you're probably right. My mindset was "better his ass than mine", but seeing as how his behavior isn't really bugging me, hopefully nobody will care and it will be no one's ass. But now, if someone who is specifically seeking to get me iced via arbcom (check history for this page) says I was sockpuppeting later, I can come back and say BUT LOOK I SAID I WASN'T HERE AND OFFERED TO DO A CU XD. It was sort of a whimsical thing... maybe I should stop listening to those urges. Milto LOL pia 13:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if that is what you were thinking at the time, I guess what you did would have seemed reasonable. But you really are getting more attention for yourself through doing that, and your presence seems to be controversial at the best of times - imagine what I must be like then! Ha ha. Anyway, I should get back to doing something productive :). Just want to keep you out of e-trouble. Later-from K37 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I saw this... it really seems that they love flogging a dead horse. And your points were good - Wikipedia is very low in ED's "hitlist", coming from someone knowledgable :3-from K37 03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin of the Beast

Now you get to decided... coincidence or not? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess that explains why you recently got on the board ;-) Milto LOL pia 23:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch

Do you want me to leave Wikipedia? Philwelch 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really care. It just peeves me off when people like you and Thatcher call something "trolling" when someone does something you don't like. I mean, it's three admins, what in Christ's name would they have to gain from suddenly disrupting Wikipedia out of nowhere? Milto LOL pia 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For great justice

You can do it! Do it for the lulz! —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I swear to God I knew this was happening as I was editing the arbcom page! Milto LOL pia 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For several reasons, I'm respectfully not convinced that this is an excellent idea right now, for either of you. Newyorkbrad 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that I'm struggling to stifle a laugh here proves that :P-fromK37 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page was showing up in CAT:CSD! Often a null edit solves the problem. Some querk in the software (or possibly my browser) caused the edit to be non-null. Sorry - if you ever work out the cause, let the developers know. -- RHaworth 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Omg. Why THAT category? I wonder if it's just bad luck. Anyway, I'll certainly let the developers know when I come up with a solution ;) Milto LOL pia 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rethink?

I have to say I'm surprised that you just came out of Werdna's RFA complaining (and justifiably so) that Philwelch was reverting a disagreement with rollback and treating you, a good-faith contributor, as a common vandal, and now you're calling your activity vandalism reversion? Not that I necessarily have a stance on the policy change, but I would've thought your own experiences with assumption of bad faith would keep you from calling edits made by diligent contributors by such terms. Milto LOL pia 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The two situations are dramatically different.

During Werdna's RfA, I was one of several users engaged in a good-faith discussion that clearly resulted in no consensus (let alone a guideline change).

In this instance, a discussion resulted in clear consensus (and a guideline change). In my assessment, the deliberate violation of this guideline (after repeatedly being warned not to) and the removal of a warning to follow a guideline were disruptive and constituted vandalism (or something tantamount to vandalism). If I'm wrong about this, it was an honest mistake on my part. (For the record, I've never accused Phil of acting in bad faith during the Werdna incident.) —David Levy 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you reinsert uncited info with this edit, yet claim the opposite? [13] ~Rangeley (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, must have forgotten to follow through the revert with that correction. I'll fix it straight away. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And are you aware that satire and parody do not carry the same meaning? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see they don't. Satire is literary technique used for criticism... any sources saying that Uncyclopedia's purpose is to be critical of Wikipedia? Milto LOL pia 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The terms are used together, which creates a slightly different meaning than saying "Uncyclopedia is a satire, and a parody of Wikipedia." A satirical parody is a parody which uses satire, ie, a parody of Wikipedia that uses satire. And there are sources which state it to be satirical. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

O rly? Why aren't they cited then? Milto LOL pia 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually added this as a citation, but you removed it in the same edit which re-inserted uncited info. [14] ~Rangeley (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-added it, see? [15] Milto LOL pia 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you can answer your own question, it is cited as you re-added the citation yourself. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the founded by Johnathan Huang etc. Milto LOL pia 22:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, you said "O rly? Why aren't they cited then?" and what I mean to say is that the source which goes to the "unnamed founder" portion also states it to be satire, and thus was meant to be a citation for both. In other words, "ya rly," and the cite is already there. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So it is... I think that author had the same misunderstanding about "satire" as I did, as Uncyclopedia is clearly not a work of criticism for Wikipedia, so it would doubtless be unwise to indlude "satire" when we both know it isn't one. But I'll leave that up to you, as I've really got no ground to stand on. Milto LOL pia 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your sig

I liked your signature, for some odd reason, but I also found it interesting when I found out it was nothing like your username. Do you mind if I ask out of curiosity? Milto LOL pia 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miltopia. Thanks for the message. Well, i worked for a Swedish company for some time. I had an Estonian collaborator who was a very good friend of mine. The first nickname that came to my mind was Svest (Svenska/Estonia). Later on i added a Z to give a better resonating effect to it. I don't want to change my username FayssalF (Fayssal is my first name by the way) because i think of maybe starting using it sometime. What about yours? Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my sig is just an "LOL" placed in a convenient spot for laughs, but my username is a combination of Milto- from Milton Waddams (some guy from Office Space who is HILARIOUS) and -topia from "utopia". I've actually never told anyone that before :-O Milto LOL pia 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Same here. I've changed my sign anyway :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and what have you done with Szvest ??!!!?? -- Ben 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From..from..Office Space?? I thought it was Milhouse (who is totally not a meme)...-Wooty Woot? contribs 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Milhouse, like most 4chan crap, is unfunny repetitious bilge. Milto LOL pia 13:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

RFCUsername template TOC move

Re your edit: I myself really really preferred it the other way. Do you feel strongly about this change? I don't want to simply revert without discussing it with you first, and I'd like to get your consent. I understand the desire to put the TOC at the top; on the other hand, I worry that this encourages new participants to skip the instructions and go straight to the entries, with a corresponding drop in attention to the guidelines. The "old hands" already knew to page down once. Could we please put the TOC back where it was, filling that blank area at bottom right? Thanks! -- Ben 02:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can revert if you want, it was just a whimsy. Milto LOL pia 03:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! -- Ben 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very, very welcome. Milto LOL pia 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Me and AGF

I'm about to delete the section that I posted on WP:CN, because it was a blatant threadjack and is way off topic. But, before I did that, I want to apologize to you because I didn't assume good faith when I saw you two warring. I really do need to get some sleep... Cheers, PTO 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting an archival

Regarding this edit, I have reverted it. That specific discussion was about whether the AFD should be protected or not, consensus was reached that it should, and as thus, the protection was done, and therefore it is no longer needed. People can still discuss about Essjay's behaviour, give him support or ask for punishment (decapitation, exile, etc), leave messages about how this will doom the project, and about being disappointed and leaving Wikipedia forever. The specific discussion about protecting the AFD is finished. -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why "archive" it? People will add to conversations as they see fit, and if it's truly over then it can be signified by a lack of replies. The message that idiotic archiving template sends is "you are not allowed to comment here even if you want to", which is simply not true. I for one have never hesitated to add to a "closed" noticeboard discussion, as little as I like to add to one in the first place. Should I see fit to comment somewhere, I will generally revert those if they get in my way. Milto LOL pia 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What I think

I have a note on this on my userpage but it is partiall crossed out now. At this point, I look for three main factors all of which are weighed: 1) Is the user trustworthy to not abuse the tools? 2) Does the user have the intelligence and knowledge of policy to not accidentally misuse the tools? 3) Will the project benefit from giving the user tools? JoshuaZ 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ^_^ Milto LOL pia 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you furry?

Are you part of the furry fandom? Wesienggoldenrend 13:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make any other edits other than to ask me that? Milto LOL pia 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, he seems fascinated, like a kitten with a shiny bottlecap. Murr.-K@ngie^meep! 10:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He wants a direct quote so he can put it in that insipid article about me. Lol! Milto LOL pia 13:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well at least he isn't asking you about your well known love of guro! :D-K@ngie^meep! 05:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you have things mistaken. I would really quite like to meet you, or someone like you perhaps... in real life, of course. I'd like to know if you are attending some conventions, furry or not perhaps. Wesienggoldenrend 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You registered in July to ask me that?? Milto LOL pia 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He wants to yiff you, Mil. Watch out. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is damn creepy dude...-K@ngie^meep! 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would this be an appropriate notice for Wesienggoldenrend? — MichaelLinnear 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, fails WP:NLT. (→Netscott) 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been searching and I found you were linked to Blu Aardvark in your contribs back a ways. Blu Aardvark's address was easy to find. I have some vacation time coming up and I will be coming by. If you're not him, please let me know so I can be saved the bother. If you are though, when I get there, we are going to have fun. Wesienggoldenrend 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to let you down Creepers McGee, I'm not your friend Blu, and I really don't want to know what your idea of fun is. — MichaelLinnear 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you are. I was talking to another one. Wesienggoldenrend 01:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thank god. — MichaelLinnear 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LOLOL, now he is b&. Devote your internet life to stalking someone as unimportant and uninteresting as myself and you are bound to be a failure. Milto LOL pia 12:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

New Username

You like my new username? SparklingWiggle 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you

Are you Blu? —SparklingWiggle^{Get a job!} 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gasp! Yes!!!  :-O  :-O  :-O  :-O  :-O Milto LOL pia 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then having your street address, I am truly looking forward to meeting you in person. I'm sure you are, too. You sound interesting on your phone's answering machine -- voice sounds really young and sexy. Wesienggoldenrend 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh lol, that goes beyond creepy-K@ngie^meep! 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, is Sparkling Wiggle a sock of Wesienggoldenrend? They appear to work in tandem-K@ngie^meep! 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it should be pretty easy to figur out. —SparklingWiggle^{Get a job!} 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're famous!

Well, not really. P.S: How close is the Uncyclopedia article to being featured? --220.237.88.167 11:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not close at all. It failed GOOD article :( :( :( Because the first paragraph sucks. And what do I get for all my hard work? I bunch of whining about how "ED is watching us sleep at night" or some crap. Ah, the life of one perpetually unappreciated... Milto LOL pia 12:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If one were to compare the versions of the article from way back, and now's version, you'd have to agree that the article has improved considerably. I don't get why they aren't thanking you! Alas, childish views and judgmental people tend to get in the way of progress...-K@ngie^meep! 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

!

Miltopia, I award you the Excellant Userpage Award for your excellant userpage. > Kamope < 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kick ass! I knew my hard work wouldn't go unappreciated forever! Milto LOL pia 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks, we are the few who use it ;-) Artaxiad 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Miltopia. Just wanted to say thanks for your help and suggestions. Telogen 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, sorry that guy is giving people such trouble over tags. I HATE it when people do that. Milto LOL pia 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please enlighten me

about the reason why do you keep deleting the information on Chronarion on the Uncyclopedia page. I mean, tell me the real reason. He is definitely notable enough (due to Uncyclopedia) to have even his own page on Wikipedia. Do you want to protect his privacy? Do you know him? Does he wish to remain anonymous? Smylei 04:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's no way Chronarion meets WP:BIO - there isn't even one significant publication about him. He's en-en-K@ngie^meep! 09:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chron has been publicized e.g. in this interview. His notability comes mainly and solely from being the boss of the U site, which is quite famous. Again, does Chron wish to remain anonymous? Smylei 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is _one_ interview. Where's the multiple reliable sources? And when has someone's personal wishes about their privacy etc. been taken into account on wiki, in the mainspace if they're deemed notable?-K@ngie^meep! 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, what's the policy on interviews? Are they counted as first or third party sources? But yeah, the guy's educational background isn't really all that relevant, maybe a couple words at most, but before, I removed it because the source was terrible. This source would verify that he's a college student, but the article should not focus on him too much keep in mind. At least, that's my opinion. Milto LOL pia 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interviews are considered Primary Sources afaik, and Primary Sources should be avoided like a rabid furry-K@ngie^meep! 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncyclopedia

The article Uncyclopedia you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Uncyclopedia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Alex valavanis 09:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Damn. Milto LOL pia 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About the rainbox text

I don't know if you know this, but you can have text blink in Mozilla browswers with <span style="text-decoration:blink;">Text, but am merely mentioning it as an amusing possibility... if you tried to implement it, you might get tarred and feathered! Well, no matter. By the way, thanks for your work on the Uncyclopedia article... I don't think that it's that far from GA; referencing has been, and probably always will be, quite an issue with it, as well as scope. Good luck... Gracenotes^T § 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

^_^ Thanks, I've been trying to make time to fix the stuff on the Uncyclopedia fialed nomination tips thing but alas, none yet. College sucks this semester. And the rainbow text on my username actually does blink for me already, it's based on a popular template found on... um... another wiki... which reminds me, I should probably substitute before the guy who put it there is blocked as an "ED troll" :-\ Anyway, thanks, I think this is the first time I've actually been complimented for article work! Milto LOL pia 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I was viewing the user page in IE6 (not by choice), so it wasn't blinking. Not like I'd want it to, though. And {{rainbow}} is already taken! Too bad, too bad *ahem*. Well, hope college gets better for you. Happy editing, Gracenotes^T § 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha thanks

:-) haha i thought you just walked past it and decided randomly to take a picture of it. thanks for the answer. :-) Ilikefood 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that would've been hilarious to find a pool of vomit just randomly though. Milto LOL pia 02:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I am out of synch with the sense of humor on this page ... it doesn't sound that hilarious to me.... Newyorkbrad 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You might change your mind if you saw how much there was. I had never seen so much vomit in one palce before, if I had found it on the street I'd think someone had lost an organ. Milto LOL pia 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand RfAr

The thread's been removed from the Workshop, but if you didn't already see it, please take a look at the response I wrote to you in response to your proposed fact finding #2 about the username blocks. You can find it in the page history, or if it's easier this is the diff. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I never knew brainstorming would cause such a fuss. I should've known better, considering in hindsight that Tony's treatment of the workshop as a competition for the BEST INPUT should have been predictable. Oh well. Milto LOL pia 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Lol? That template is so stupid, it is bizarre :/-K@ngie^meep! 06:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree most heartily. It might as well say HELLO I AM WIKIPEDIA AND I AM MADE FOR EDITING AND NOT FOR READING. As someone who uses Wikipedia to do most of my homework, this bothers me on principle's sake. Milto LOL pia 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summary at Danny's RFA wasn't called for. Just because you voted oppose for Danny doesn't mean you have the right to shove it in his face by using kekeke when updating the tally. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

YES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE KEKEKE MEANT Milto LOL pia 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to misuse edit summaries in this way, you will be blocked for disruption. - Mark 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it: the edit summary was random and had no malice in it, and you are inventing problems. This conversation is over, and for me, it may as well have never happened. Happy Easter! Milto LOL pia 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Sent you an emailz :3-K@ngie^meep! 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lulz, I had already replied before I got this message. Milto LOL pia 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I read an advertisement that advised me to award a barnstar TODAY and my choice fell on you, unsuspecting stranger. I'd have given you the good humour thing, but you already have one. Enjoy, but please don't return the favour, I despise those geeky social gestures, reminds of five-beer-homosexuality each time. Cheers. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• 5-Beer homosexuality? That is the most well-mixed composition of hilarious and clever expression I have heard in months... I think it might be my new favorite phrase of all time! I feel like I've grown a little inside even ^_^ Thanks, although I'm not sure what I did to get this one... more stuff to cram on my userpage! Milto LOL pia 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The credit for that expression goes to Max Goldt. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR

If you revert once more, I'll report you.--MONGO 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One, Two. Stop following my edits, stop seeking conflict. Milto LOL pia 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR is not an entitlement to making 3 reverts...disruption and seeking conflicts are your forte.--MONGO 19:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, are you going to come to my talk page and insult me, edit war with me and then ignore the talk page, and then go tell people I'm harassing you? Please don't, that doesn't ever seem to work out well for anyone.

Anyway, I'm aware of the revert rule and all it implies, and have opened a talk header, which you know... but I think we're just missing each other with the time it takes to edit, so the discussion would likely be kept in one spot, should you choose to engage. And if you honestly feel harassed and choose to disengage, I can assure you that I will not press you to participate. Milto LOL pia 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I take it you are "the" Miltopia, the same one who used to hang around at ED...? Sorry for asking, I've been away for a long time. Phaedriel - 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Miltopia, I'm sorry if approaching you causes you trouble. I've chosen to reply to you here instead of mailing you for the same reasons expressed by Musical Linguist; I hope you don't mind, and I expect you'll understand my reservations which are not personal in any way. I was simply intrigued to see your name at Wiki, given your past association with a site that immediately creates a swirl of negative emotions on most of us regulars here - and, as you may imagine, I'm no exception. I took the time to read your talk page after my message (something I think I should have done before posting it - I'm sorry) and I checked your contribs for a while - I hope you forgive me, but I needed to see exactly "what" you were up to by myself. In my entry, you weren't majorly involved aside from a few goofy comments here and there - so, as far as my particular case is concerned, the contrition you express is welcome, as your apology is. However, I don't approve your involvement in other articles about fellow Wikipedians. But I also believe you've taken Musical Linguist's criticism and suggestions seriously; and I praise your courage to come here, of all places, and keep the same username, with the intention of becoming a productive editor. You've also had the guts to stand against a measure of abuse at ED, like the outing of personal info is. For that reason, you have my thanks and my heads up, and I see that you're hated there now. It's because of all these positive attitudes from you that you won't find an enemy in me - far from it, I hope you have a long and fruitful time editing, and if it's within my modest possibilities to help you somehow, please just let me know. I do feel, however, that although you sound truly repentant of your activities there, you still haven't fully grasped the inherent evil of intentionally hurting someone you don't know, someone who has never done anything wrong to you nor anybody else, and whose feelings and personal life are endangered by them.

Dear Miltopia, allow me to tell you that your apology is accepted - however, I cannot follow your advice to not take the ED "lulz" "personally", as you repeatedly say. I don't think I have to explain to you the grief and stress ED has caused me. I decided to stay clear from the web altogether until I gave birth because of (among other episodes that I won't comment here) some things that were being said about me and my pregnancy there. And after someone, whose association with ED is unquestionable to me, decided it was funny to spread the rumor that I had miscarried my baby, the stuff I was getting via email and my talk page only got worse. Can you possibly imagine what it is to read stuff like "get an abortion lol!!!" while carrying a life within you? And like I told a friend a while ago, I can't find the words to properly express the sadness and fear the mere thought of losing my baby caused me, something that until that moment had never crossed my mind, but that it stayed with me every hour, every day until I was finally able to hold her in my arms.

I'm not a person who finds pleasure in holding grudges, and I take your offer of burying the hatchets with pleasure. Furthermore, I hope this may be a first step towards a good relation between us. All I ask is that you understand that I, like everybody else who gets ridiculed and bashed for the whole world to see just because they made the mistake of being marginally noted at a ridiculously small environment like Wikipedia, or MySpace, or LiveJournal, have feelings and cannot help but to take mockery on our lives personally. You've gone long way since your days at ED. I praise you deeply for it, and I only wish more people there learn from your example. Keep it up, thank you and hugs, Phaedriel - 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

I enabled email as you requested. — MichaelLinnear 06:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I've already spent a lot of time defending the caption on the talk page. I don't see why I have to reiterate every argument just because you can't be bothered to read the entire history. THe fact is that this was a settled question until you started disrupting it again. I shouldn't have to defend it over and over again. —Chowbok ☠ 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The RFC did not result in a consensus, hence you have nothing close to a "binding" decision having been made on the talk page. Let's stick to the caption, not to arguing over process. Milto LOL pia 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean

Replying here as not to clutter the AFD page. No idea what you mean here. Are you really describing the plan of having dictionary content on wiktionary where it belongs, and linking to it from wikipedia as "despicable"? What is your objection? Friday (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, nothing sinister. I just don't like the idea of having an article here just be nothing but pointing to Wiktionary... very self-referential. But obviously if that's common practice, I'm in the minority on that :( Milto LOL pia 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Category

I'd definitely consider creating the category disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He protests a unanimous UCFD consensus, then creates an absoulutely unhelpful user category that wastes everyone's time to nominate and delete it, not to mention it was a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by religion which was the original target of the discussion. VegaDark 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You chose to go after it yourself, blaming him for "wasting your time" is nonsense. You could have just as easily left it alone, at no cost to the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The category was speedy deleted as a violation as WP:POINT, and the deletion review immediately afterward was speedy closed by yet another admin as a WP:POINT violation, so I'm obviously not the only one who had this view. VegaDark 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye gads!

You've been swimming laps in the Habbo pool, haven't you?-K@ngie^meep! 14:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)