User talk:Milowent

Talk Page Archives: 2008-09|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|2016|2017|2018|2019|2020|2021

Anne Rice Award

		Congratulations!
		The Anne Rice Award honors editors who have improved Wikipedia's coverage of women writers by creating a biography of a woman writer who, like Anne Rice, used a pen name, nom de plume, literary initials, or pseudonym on the title page or by-line of her works in place of her real name. On behalf of WP:WPWW, thank you for creating the biography on Anne Hampton Brewster, who sometimes wrote as Enna Duval. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Monroe, Kansas discussion

Hello! Please strike the "buzzkill" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe, Kansas (2nd nomination), as it can be seen as a personal attack. Also, I agree with your position on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Paul McDonald, thanks for your calm manner, i added a disclaimer since the editor already responded. And thanks for work on the AFD! Some of my AfD battles about a decade ago were quite the kerfuffle, but I'm now even wiser and calmer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's easy to lose composure, and a constant struggle. No worries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Paul McDonald, I hear ya. We've both been around well over a decade, I see myself citing some discussion on your talkpage 11 years ago in some silliness at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#User:Milowent. May Monroe outlive us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy April 1

Don't open this!
What the?! Happy April Fool's Day! Thanks for your contributions to improve the dissemination of free knowledge to humanity! North America1000 15:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Check it!

We will all be forgotten someday, unless...

WP:DOB updated last year

WP:DOB was updated last year as a result of an RfC that's now noted in DOB: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_165#People's_birthdate,_conflicting_(reliable)_sources,_and_WP:SYNTHESIS. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nostradamus Effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Courier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Update

Hi Milowent. I just wanted to make you aware that Hipal has reignited the conflict regarding Scott Baio's birth year that you so graciously (and humorously) helped to resolve almost four weeks ago. Stoarm (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think he's gone off the deep end with his latest thread. His crusade over the issue has now gone on for almost four years. You seem to be the only involved editor that he's actually taken (somewhat) seriously. Maybe you can reason with him and get him to understand that simply letting it go and moving on would be the best move? Stoarm (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Stoarm, are they proposing to change the text of the article itself, or just trim the references? If the text stays as is, it doesn't seem worth fighting too much about a culling of the references.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point, they've only talked about removing refs. But it's more than just a trim. They want to remove four refs, including one of the two Baio tweets from his official account, both which are vital to settling the dispute. However, based on the editor's historical behavior in other disputes, it is very likely that even if the refs issue gets settled, they will subsequently demand changes to the text of the article itself. As you'll see from all of the many talk page threads about this dispute, if another editor in any way disagrees with the version the editor wants (demands), they will often completely ignore what that editor is saying, deflect, and very vaguely cite a laundry list of various policies, guidelines, essays, and other pages, and do so completely out of context or with no context at all. When one asks specifically which part of the policy, guidline, etc. they are referring to, they will not tell you. It appears their overall modus operandi is simply to drive disagreeing editors crazy until they get so fed up that they just walk away. I don't think anything in the article needs changed since we already had a great resolution a month ago. But if you want to "negotiate" an end to this years-long dispute with the edtior, I will support whatever resolution you feel is best, as long as no more than three refs are removed, both Baio tweets stay, and the article text stays as-is. Your people skills and debate skills are excellent, so if there's anyone who can put an end to this nonsense once and for all, I would put my money on you. Stoarm (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• ok, Stoarm, I'll try to keep an eye on it. There's no rush if the article text isn't changing. I don't mind reverting things that require it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Stoarm (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Joanie Loves Chachi. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources you previously found in an AFD no longer work, and its at AFD again

Stacked (film) has been nominated for deletion. You previously participated in an AFD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film) and found three sources which convinced others to keep it. Two of those sources are now dead links. Dream Focus 09:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dream!!! Glad to see we are both still kicking around, thanks for the note. I'm not at AFD too much these days but its interesting to see ones we were on 10-15 years ago sometimes come back up.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Pennsylvania Land Trust Association for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Land Trust Association (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

No one!

Haha thanks. 199.80.8.254 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

John Williams

Could you please intervene on the John Williams page. Someone keeps deleting his February 8, 1932 birthdate, despite NUMEROUS sources that confirm it as the date. Pleae and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:51A8:5576:E84:2005 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Done!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Synthesis of birth dates

Milowent, Please do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Toddst1, dude!!! I am infallible!! Seriously though, the NY Times article said he turned 90 on Tuesday, which based on publication date tracks to February 8, 1932.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That is literally called out in WP:SYN: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If you're going to argue with someone, you should try to understand the basic policies they've explicitly called out in reverting your edit. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuira River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vista Alegre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Vince McMahon photo

Hello Milowent, Vince McMahon has been in the news quite a bit lately with his recent comeback. I have noticed the photo on the article dates from 2006, and I think it would be a good idea to change for a photo no more than 5 years old. I am not adept or knowledgeable on how to change photos, so I just thought I would bring it to your attention. He simply has changed appearances in the last 17 years (as most people do), and my opinion is that the article is not really up to date fully with an old photo. Thanks for your attention. 64.141.54.166 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Old sexism on wikipedia

I recently ran across a comment in an AFD I made in 2010 where i mentioned WP:HOTTIE as a joke. This was a silly essay (marked as humor) that essentially said "hotties are always notable." It wasn't limited to females, but that was its obvious intended subtext. The essay was later userfied and eventually deleted in 2014 (as appropriately being noted as past its prime). Here is an archive copy from 2010. [1] Sitting here in 2023, I can't imagine wanting to make a similar joke about female attractiveness as a basis for notability. But I'm sorry I did so then too. Wikipedia is fascinating in how you can look (if you dig) into how the culture matured and developed over time.Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:18th-century heat waves has been nominated for deletion

Category:18th-century heat waves has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

What a Difference a Decade Makes

Indeed, what a difference a Decade—and a boatload of previously unavailable, recently digitized news sources—Makes. Greetings, Milowent. Just to refresh your memory, a little over 10 years ago, while still in my Wikipedia infancy and woefully ill-equipped to create any article, I foolishly started one about my late, mystery-writing—and, prior to that, radio-scripting—mother, Jane Speed, armed with little more than a memorial bio penned by my late father and a great quantity of private correspondence and documents shared via my Flickr account—thus both wasting fellow Wikipedians' time and, worse still, doing a grave disservice to what I've only recently come to realize was an even more impressive and fascinating, albeit fragmented career than suggested by my over-reaching, under-researched 'opus.' 

Long story short, it's a very different article now. Putting aside, for the moment, the quality and/or wiki-worthiness of my prose, I think we can both agree that, speaking purely in terms of the subject's notability, that standard—as per both WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMPORARY—has been met. Anyway, I very much appreciate you taking the time to read both this message, and, as your schedule permits, my as-yet-unpublished reboot itself. I look forward to hearing from you. DavidESpeed (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• DavidESpeed, great to hear from you. A DECADE, wow! I see its in mainspace now, i'll keep an eye on it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yikes! My bad. I should've updated this yesterday, as soon as I decided to go ahead and publish. Moreover, I neglected to mention how pleased I was—recalling your exceedingly constructive contribution to that ancient tribunal (coupled—why am I not surprised?—with your ongoing focus on article rescue)—to see that you are one of the few participants still standing (wiki-wise, at least). In any event, any further feedback regarding the article—questions, suggestions, impressions—would be most welcome. DavidESpeed (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)