User talk:Milowent/Archive 5

2013 Archive of the Talk Page of Milowent

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Milowent: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Milowent. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Crowder

What do you feel "we" need to resolve regarding Crowder's page? I see that you have been repeatedly told not to attack other editors, and you continue to use profane language in regards to me and/or my edits. I have not reported you...yet. The INFERENCE of a racial epithet satisfies the requirement regarding the controversy without resorting to racially inflammatory language. I personally don't think even that needs to be included, but feel it is a fair compromise for those that DID infer it. On the other hand, this is such a minor part of his life and career maybe it shouldn't be included at all, since it was only at a political conference and meant for its attendees. I mean, we don't include every time other comedians say, elude, or imply a profanity. That may be the best option, deleting everything other than he made the video, and let the READERS decide on their own.

Otherwise, in "office talk", please explain what you want to talk about? JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Why do you so slavishly want to avoid the import of his knickers joke? He looks at a black guy in the video and says basically "what? I can say knickers, I'm wearing them". Its a reference to the use of the term "nigger" in rap music, to deny that is to deny common sense. He is not using it as an epithet, and anyone who didn't "infer" what the joke was is not credible. That being said, if you want to discuss the matter further, let's do it on the talk page of the article itself. It may well be that Crowder isn't notable at all and shouldn't have an article if events like this are not notable. I'm open to discussion on that chers. BTW, re attacks on other editors, you'll see I have an extremely favorable track record when I engage with editors, I'm not afraid to call bullshit when I see it, but I am reasonable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the bullying and foul language "reasonable". My references were to the various warnings that you've gotten from admins.

Re:Crowder I think the current version completely deleting that one indcident out of an entire career is best. I don't understand that THERE MUST BE CONSENSUS, in other words, you want two people who simply do not agree on a point to agree. Even if things are as you say, does that merit inclusion in his article? Every double-entendre that every commedian says should be on their page? I think deletion in the best option. Also, just like anyone else's personal page, their basic bio is at the top. Why does this keep being moved around to the bottom?!

I will change that and believe that this is the best compromise, deleting the event that can have more than one interpretation, from his entry. JohnKAndersen (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Jessica Dykstra

A while ago you participated in the deletion discussion for a model named Jessica Dykstra. I've recently been made aware that she is making her major motion picture debut in Pain and Gain with the Rock and Mark Wahlberg. --Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Hi Milowent, I'm sure your edits to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories were in good faith, but I'm concerned they don't conform to NPOV. While these theories are certainly worthy of ridicule, I don't think it's appropriate to present them that way in an encyclopedia. Check similar articles, such as Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, for examples. Best, BDD (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't a picture make the article more interesting though?[1]. I am bit concerned by the use of the passive voice in the article now, because we don't identify the purveyor of these theories as internet whackjobs (or whatever the diplomatic term for that it).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the closest thing we can do without violating policy is to report criticism of the theories that has been published in reliable sources. I've tried to represent some of that with existing sources, but you're welcome to expand on those. Just remember, with articles like these, it's best if just about every sentence is supported by a ref. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Millowent, I respect you as an editor, but you are developing a bad habit of editing to make a WP:POINT. Just because you don't like a topic, don't sabotage it. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin42, not sure what you are talking about. Obviously I knew the tinfoil hat would be reverted, but its a cautionary tale we all need to keep in mind with an article like that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was referring to your edits/!votes on the defensive gun use article, adding in slave owners/overseers killing slaves, and arguing for inclusion of Nazi's killing escaping Jews. If you knew something would be reverted, thats disruptive isn't it? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits to the defensive gun use article were sound, the article was making it sound like all defensive gun use is a good thing, when in actuality it is dependent on the context, since you had a problem with my additions. On the instant article, I was being WP:BOLD, but as that says "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crowder Article

Finally got Andersen to start talking on the talk page. Currently trying to get him to understand the concept of "consensus". 5minutes (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I never had a problem understanding the meaning of the word consensus. My problem was that for some reason some people's opinions were considered a "consensus", while those that were disagreed with were not. I'd much rather it be fact-based than a consensus of opinions, but it was the best that could be done, considering. So we ALL will have to deal with a much less substantial and factual entry. Better to get 75% of something than nothing. JohnKAndersen (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Mahanoro

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mahanoro, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bot, you screwed up. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Marolambo

Hello, Milowent, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Marolambo, appears to be directly copied from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Marolambo if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• oh, for pete's sake.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration for the Signpost

Hi Milowent. I've created a (empty) draft space at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages/Signpost. Let's collaborate there on the Signpost article, for which I'd like you to be a full fledged co-author. I've got lots of business travel ongoing, so we'll need to press in order to get this done for a Saturday(?) deadline. Let's continue the discussion over there. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I am done for the night. I know I've made a ton of edits today, but I'd appreciate your feedback and extension on anything I've written. I'm not looking to push any particular story/agenda/outline, just excited and trying to be proactive about our start! Be bold! In particular, I think you'll be valuable in taking my technical and lofty research language and turning it into something accessible by the broader WP community. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Look forward to working on it! My time on Friday may be limited, but should be able to bring it together on Saturday, and we'll see where we are then. My article creations have run the gamut from the Trillion dollar coin to The Annoying Orange so I bet I can find some good angles!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Between the user and talk pages, I have now sketched out most of what I wanted to show/say. There is obviously lots of formatting, wiki-fication, and language-level stuff to take care of, but I am happy as a conceptual unit. Get in there and say what you think is important and modify anything/everything. I tend to commit changes early/often, so I hope my frequent editing isn't discouraging you. Since you haven't done the weeks top-25, I am imagining something else is keeping you for the time being (and that's fine). Are we going to push for this week or next in the Signpost? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope to finish the top 25 in the next hour or so, unexpected events at home have caused some delays. Will also see what I can do with text. There are a lot of concepts and topics covered so far in the draft, but its easy for SP editors to suggest cutting down if necessary I guess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

New Top 25 list is complete, at WP:5000/Top25Report.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pageview stats data may be wrong

as discussed here and here. LittleBen (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ben, what do you mean exactly? That the stats.grok.se data is incorrect at times (if huge spikes are seen in charts), right? Not WP:5000? (Btw, if stats.grok.se aggregates redirects, it would have included the big spike in Wsn at Wireless sensor network, but did not).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Georgina Bülowius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgina Bülowius 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/Georgina Bülowius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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 template from the top of the article.--Petr Ferreira (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fascinating how you so deftly joined wikipedia to do that!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hot jam Milowent, your cheese jihadist joke apparently has a longer shelf life than File:Easy cheese2.jpg!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• LOL, an arbitration over the pizza cheese jihadist joke? I can't think of anything better to spice up the WP:SIGNPOST reporting than that! I better see if Gloria Allred is available to defend me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• You might find this lovely lady to be a more suitable advocate. Who can remain angry in the face of a jovial bovine?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Very moooving of you! True, but I was kinda hoping for an outpouring of "Statement by ____" sections all stating "MILO WENDT GRADUATES!"[2]. I really need to do a blogpost on that cultural highpoint, something to match my "Better Than Cats" investigation. Can you (and you too pbp, if you're watching, seriously...) google "better than cats" and see how far down that blog of mine appears in your results. Its number 1 in mine, but google may be tailoring to me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your blog comes up number 1 for me as well! ^{Blows noisemaker, throws confetti}--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweet! Andy Warhol was wrong; everyone does not have 15 minutes of fame, but everyone can have lasting fame on a topic of interest to 15 people in the world.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 for me too. CallawayRox (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Friends don't call friends cheese jihadists

FYI, I went 3-2-1 on that list. Surprisingly, being called a cheese jihadist is not the worst I've gotten from ARS. There was the time a few months back when Callaway responded to everything I said with, "Purplebackpack89 should be blocked". Then there's the rainbow king of keep, the duke of disruption, the foxhound of false hounding claims... But, yes, I do think a little time away from AfD would be beneficial. pbp 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've revised my comments to not put you in the same category as the rainbow warrior and his pet rock. But, for the love of God, would you please stop bringing up Cheese Jihadist over and over again? Even if we accept it as a joke, it's a joke that got old months ago pbp 07:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make the joke the basis of an arbitration request! But "the rainbow warrior and his pet rock", I don't know, that's pretty bad, you might be permabanned.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for producing your weekly top 25 list. I'd looked for something like that in the past, but didn't know about this list until I saw it mentioned in the Signpost SchreiberBike (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've been looking for similar stats myself for a long time too, luckily I found User:West.andrew.g, who had the ability to create the Top 5000 needed to get the project going.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Signpost article

Northamerica1000 has given you a Gatorade shower!

(To give an editor a Gatorade shower, place {{subst:Gatorade shower|message= ~~~~}} on their talk page along with an optional customized message.)

Nice work on your co-authorship of the Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles: catalysts, trends, and applications article at Wikipedia Signpost! This was a comprehensive and informative read. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Congratulations, Milowent. I'm glad we were able to collaborate on our recent Signpost article. It's a testament to your contribution that it is has been so well received, viewed by so many people, and picked up by significant media outlets. I hope that we can work together again in the future. Thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've enjoyed it as well, I hope we have future opportunities to collaborate as well. I am drowning in barnstars! :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For your fantastic Signpost story on the most popular Wikipedia articles, which gathered a staggering 5877 views on the day it was published, please accept this token of my gratitude. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More press for our article

Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

I'm glad you don't feel I was stepping on your toes :) Serendi^podous 14:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Strange Case of Loretta Scott Crew

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta Scott Crew. yes, I am talking to myself, so I don't forget this interesting possible hoax incident.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maintinandry

Hello, Milowent, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Maintinandry, appears to be directly copied from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Maintinandry if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Andevoranto

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Andevoranto, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Top25

Some weird ones this week. What do you think?

• Seether: Suddenly gets 800,000+ hits in one day, then dies. Probably just a spam.
• amazon.com: Traffic to that page has doubled since the beginning of February. Possibly related to disputes with states over paying sales tax.
• Still Life at the Penguin Cafe: Out of nowhere, sudden spike between 20-22 Feb, then dies back. Unless the DYK was on that day, I can't think of what could have caused it.
• World War II: Strange; it hasn't spiked in popularity recently, yet I don't remember seeing it in the top 25 before.

Thoughts? Serendi^podous 12:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I have the new WP:TOP25 up now, feel free to add a summary paragraph if you'd like. On the above notes - I think Seether and Still Life at the Penguin Cafe are most likely non-human views. When something has a burst of human popularity, the views don't drop to almost nothing after a huge spike, there is going to be some noticeable tail. Like I had to see why Michael Jordan was in the Top 25, but the stats showed a steady rise in views before his 50th birthday, and then fall again; that make sense. A Google Doodle will usually cause a massive spike and drop, but that is always documented so you can confirm it happened. Amazon.com is a harder case, I kept it in the Top25 for this week -- Alexa lists Amazon at #9 worldwide, so its not impossible for it to have more views recently for some reason. World War II is a steadily popular article, it appeared once prior this year (Wikipedia:5000/Top25Report/January 27-February 2, 2013) - but whether it makes the top 25 seems to depend on whether its a heavy news week, when the threshold to reach the Top 25 is higher. One entry this week I found interesting was Argo (2012 film). It was the most viewed article on any movie nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, and it won. I wonder if we'd find any trends like that if we pulled stats for prior years' nominees.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

related: Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data Tom B (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please please tell me someone isn't spamming Sherlock Holmes :'-( I'm guessing that Ernst Litfass is a recurring spam, since I haven't seen him in your previous reports. ANd do you think it's time to remove G-force? Serendi^podous 11:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like Sherlock had one big view day, no Google Doodle to explain it, so that will be off. Litfass is recurring spam, it has bursts of huge views, even though the de.wikipedia version has very few views. And on G-Force, I'm perplexed as to why, but we've given it the benefit of the doubt for awhile, and I am comfortable removing from the list this time, which I'll work on this evening (pacific time US). If you have other thoughts or input, feel free to weigh in!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Am copying this discussion to Wikipedia talk:5000/Top25Report, let's try to centralize discussion there to encourage participation. Thanks.!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're busy this week I'd be happy to do the report for you, but I need to know the process you use. Serendi^podous 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's funny; I kinda thought you would remove my snarky comments yourself :) I only really put them in for the hell of it; I din't think they would last. Serendi^podous 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, we'll see, I guess. I like a little snark myself. I kind of like letting the chart evolve organically and see what happens. The stats are the stats, but how we analyze them is up to us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

LOTS of weird ones this week. Will need a second opinion. Serendi^podous 08:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• looking really quick: would remove Aho–Corasick string matching algorithm (makes no sense), G-Force (as usual), Cat anatomy (is someone screwing with us? I think it possible), Limonana (one day spike), New Brunswick (nothing justifies his spike if you look at news), Hollow Body Guitar (this is a spam issue, spotted on WP:TOPRED before). San Marino seems legit, they played england in football. Nowruz also legit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for top 25 report

thanks very much, i use it to help target editing Tom B (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:5000/Top25Report/January 13-19, 2013

Sorry about the confusion with this page — I had no clue that you were working on the project, and the history of moving several pages around meant that I had no clue who had originally created it. I'll not again obstruct things if I notice you tagging these pages for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, no problem at all, I am always glad to see people thinking before deleting, considering my evil inclusionist history. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Narine Dovlatyan discussion

Hi Milowent, if you think that I will not dispute the results, you are wrong. I am confident in my position but you dont. You dont go to the debate, it means you are not sure that you are right.

As for the English, man with a worse English coaching English club. I think I can handle it somehow.--46.241.247.85 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh well, I tried. Wait six months, the world won't end.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose 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/Jenna Rose (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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.

Nomination of Steven Crowder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Crowder 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/Steven Crowder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from with these two. Rogerthat94 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't author Jenna Rose, though I participated in prior AfD discussions. Thanks for the notice, I appreciate it, I'll probably weigh in at some point. I noted when it was recreated that it was a "huge rewrite" so the older AfD content wasn't as relevant, I don't know why certain articles get such undue attention.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I sent notifications to a lot of the people who made major contributions or were involved in the previous AfD debates. Rogerthat94 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Grio

Hi. Are you planning on adding those sources you mentioned in the deletion discussion to the article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, I was expecting you would want to first. You helpfully identified the article as potentially needing improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I figure that those who advocate retention of a nominated article would be motivated (and perhaps feel some sense of obligation) to do so; since you were willing to add to a page, I figured the page in question could be the actual article, instead of an AfD discussion page. Cutting out the middle man, so to speak. I don't think obligating those who find all those articles and nominate to do this with all such articles is particularly fair or egalitarian. I've certainly do so with my share of articles, but acting as if I have to do all of them isn't very reasonable. Are you willing to add them? Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

For the purpose of keeping of an article, the policy only states that sources must be available, not that they actually be in the article. WP:BEFORE is satisfied by merely identifying the sources. They only actually need to be added into the article if they are serving as WP:V for particular statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a proposal: let's all play nice and do a little bit. It's in keeping with the cooperative spirit of the joint, and with the general idea of WP:ASSHOLISMISATWOWAYSTREET (I like to think of myself as an equal-opportunity offender). The first editor to improve the article gets a nice Belgian beer, the last one gets a Keystone. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, alright, I'll do something to it. Above I was responding to what I interpreted as Nightscream's passive-aggressive suggestion with my own passive-aggressive response.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• :) Milowent, I like you. That we often disagree is entirely your fault. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being passive-aggressive, I merely asked a question, and politely suggested that those who advocate retention of an article should be willing to add the barest of secondary sources that go to its notability, since it seems only fair. That's not passive-aggressive, that's just reasonable and fair. Thanks for your decision, Milowent. It is much appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

NPA

You should seriously consider redacting your inappropriate personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOXY. Thank you. - MrX 13:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• MrX--I happen to be something of an expert on personal attacks, having made many of them myself (some of them directed at our dear Milowent here). If you seriously find those comments about panties in a twist etc. objectionable, then you may not last very long here. To put it another way, there is no personal attack. Your time would be better spent investigating Milowent's charge, which seems to have some meat on it (though no chili that I can see). Drmies (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion and self-claimed expertise are duly noted, but kindly avoid lecturing me on my longevity with the project.

  I don't have a personal reaction to the comments, but they are over the line, especially for a civil discussion. They discourage open discussion and scare off editors who don't want to deal with the incivility. They also derail the discussion. I am asking nicely that Milowent please stop, and that they consider redacting the comments. - MrX 14:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

  There is nothing at all wrong with those; being a bit brusque when one feels the need is not uncivil, nor does it call for redacting. "Panties in a twist" is ironically applicable to what you're doing right now. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

ARS asleep at the wheel

At the risk of being WP:BEANSy, there's no article on Adria Richards yet? Isn't this sort of thing...an "event" that allegedly crosses the bright line into "significant coverage"...ARS' raison d'être? :) Tarc (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised too, I expected to see one earlier this week. Oddly enough, Alison preemptively salted the title without comment earlier today... IAR, I suppose. In any case, a truly determined inclusionist could get around that with something like Adria Richards controversy. I'm surprised we haven't seen an article about the 9-year-old with the video game Kickstarter, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The 9 year old could be listed in Kickstarter as a scammer, since her wealthy mother could've easily given her the money for camp, and obviously made a professional video for her pretending to be her, to get some attention. Dream Focus 20:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Adria Richards, I had to google her. The story hasn't crossed into the Gawkersphere yet (and may not, I bet). Interesting case; to make her point for her, if she had sexy slideshows of herself online in connection with her firing[3], she'd be super notable. Hadn't head of the Kickstarter scam either!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Alison's protection, the line reads "[create=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎({{pp-create}})", meaning only an autoconfirmed user can create the article. I assume that she wanted to, quite rightly, prevent anonymous swill from creating an attack page right off the bat. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, good point, I saw the create protection and just assumed it was admin-only. So I guess someone probably will create it eventually, since she did for Python what Sandra Fluke did for Planned Parenthood. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Hey, how did I land in the media blip = WP notability section? And where's the article about the guy that got his stupid ass fired, and what were the jokes? I demand transparency. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the joke was something to do with "big dongles" and desiring to "fork a repo". I have to get back to work though, Adria Richards on Twitter isn't going to create itself! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Ha, I almost put that Twitter article suggestion in here. This weekend, when I was out of town, I borrowed someone else's baby a couple of times (to get my fix of baby holding); she referred to the boy's little wee-wee as "dongle". I'd place a note here about my new son and his little protuberance, but Milowent, in his old age, is getting more easily shocked each day. Good luck with your article creation, Drmies (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for considering my delicate constitution, doctor. Remember it when i !vote keep on Adria's AfD, please.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The Gates Ajar

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Gates Ajar, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Top25

Hi! Just compiled the raw list for this week, and came up with two new one-day spikes: "Devil" and "Admiral of France". No Google Doodles to explain them, so do you think you could try your new tactics on them? Also we should try to figure out what is going on with "New Brunswick"? Serendi^podous 09:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Admiral of France (exclude): Nature of spike: severe (3-28 views: 13, 3-29: 467,778, 3-30: 27); Number of edits to page during subject week: 1 (registered user, formatting edit); Tweets (none of link; two mentions of "admiral of france" on March 30)
• Devil: similar to admiral of france, I would also remove it.
• New Brunswich: Cause is not clear, but it appears spike abruptly ended a few days ago.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusing people of acting like 2nd graders

I've been found out. I've never said a kind word ever to anyone. User_talk:Maximusveritas#Steven_Crowder.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Milowent. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Top25

Hi! I think our project may have uncovered a previously unknown phenomenon: April fools wiki searches

Richard Hammond: A British car show presenter. Unezplained spike on April 1-2

Dumpster: Unexplained spike on April 1

Durian: Unexplained spike on April 1

Ycuá Bolaños supermarket fire: I can't necessarily chalk up this to an April fool, since it occurred on March 31

airport terminal: unexplained spike on April 1

waffle: Unexplained spike on April 1-2

MOS Technology 6502: Again, may not be due to an April fool, as the main spike occurred on March 31 (but then, we're talking Greenwich Mean Time)

Now the question is, are these April Fools a random collection of pranks, or are they coordinated by a single site or organisation? Serendi^podous 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa - i think they may all be legit!
• "Durian", "dumpster", "waffle", and "aiport terminal" all got popular from the Google nose prank -- see various articles which list terms as part of the prank: [4][5][6][7].
• Ycuá Bolaños supermarket fire is also legit - reddit effect, see [[8]] and [9]
• Richard Hammond could also be a reddit thing - he is clearly a favorite on reddit.[10]. And see also [11].
• MOS Technology 6502: Another reddit thing.[12].

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to do it this week I'm afraid; too many things on the burner. I've put what I've done on the draft, but a lot of the removed pranks are going to have to be reinstated. Serendi^podous 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK; I did it. But we need to work on how to get this page recognised. Right now it's a crapload of work for no recognition, and I need more people working on it. Serendi^podous 02:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, we need more attention to it! I meant to do it this week after your notice, but got hit by a virus this week!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Milowent/Archive 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Top25Apr22

Calvinism: Seems legit; probably due to Reddit, as there are no newsworthy events related to it this week

Solway Firth Spaceman: Again, looks like a Reddit spike

Chikako Watanabe: His latest album was released internationally last month, so that's quite a delay

Hoshi Ryokan: Lost the title of world's oldest hotel in 2011; probably another Reddit.

Serendi^podous 19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Viewcounts of Watanbe don't look like a random spike, but i can't find an explanation either. Do you want me to take at stab at this weeks' report?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could collaborate on it. Serendi^podous 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

i'm working pn a very unreliable internet connection at the moment, so perhaps you could do it this weekSerendi^podous 15:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd ones this week:

Mark Linn-Baker: if you can find a decent reason for Larry from Perfect Strangers ending up the top search this week, I'll give you a cookie.

History of chocolate: An odd one, but I think it may be legit

Chikako Watanabe: either someone is spamming him or he is suddenly really popular for no reason.

Dirk Schulze-Makuch: A guy who thinks we've already found aliens. No real reason I can find for the spike in views

Transformation matrix: Feels suspiciously like yet another bit of math/tech jargon spam. Why do these happen?

Serendi^podous 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have completely slacked on this, perhaps I can do just a very basic version for the week missed. Not finding any good reasons for these spikes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated. I had to leave some fields blank because I don't have the info for last week, so if you're intending to do a quick take on last week, that would be helpful. Thanks. Serendi^podous 21:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Keeley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Herald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL

"Revert the Unintentional He-Man Women Hater's Club President. i wrote this article and though i don't own it, i cannot suffer to see this atrocity continue." High five. :) Avt tor (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• hehe. I am upset about the whole thing, but you gotta laugh sometimes. Meanwhile, take a look at this:(redacted). I am speechless.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, that is scary. Avt tor (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Final warning: Category:American men novelists

Hi Milowent,

I see that you have been systematically depopulating Category:American men novelists, in these edits.

As you know, the category is under discussion at WP:CFD 2013 April 25. The standard CFD notice is present on the category page, and it says Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

So ... stop emptying the category while the discussion is in progress. You have already been warned about his elsewhere, so pleas take this as a final notice that if you persist, I will seeking admin action to have you stopped.

This is not complicated. A discussion is underway, and if it reaches a consensus to delete or merge the category, a bot will do the work. If no such consensus is reached, then the category should not be depopulated. Please do not pre-empt the consensus.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I explained on the discussion why I believed depopulation in this instance was appropriate, nay, demanded. I acted in good faith, I see you acted to revert a fair amount of my actions, luckily I was not the only one so acting.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that you have decided to share the outrage expressed by a few journalists does not entitle you to depopulate a category, particularly one that is under discussion at CFD, where many editors support its retention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its not a "few" journalists. Its a mass slaughter. Rational human consensus is that this category is pathetic. The keep arguments in the discussion have little grounding and should be given little weight. A very infrequent user (User:Imurchie) created the category and put Orson Scott Card in it, along with P. D. Cacek and V. V. Ganeshananthan who are both WOMEN. Imurchie was mocking the issue, its so clear its unfucking believable that you would now defend his pointy trolling.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't give a rats **** about what a few misinformed bloggers and journalists are saying. Everything I've read *out there* suggests that people are just parroting inaccurate descriptions of how categorization works - and they massively misunderstand how wikipedia works in general (e.g. saying "wikipedia does this, wikipedia does that") - so why don't you do what I do - ignore the noise, and focus on wikipedia processes. You have now admitted to emptying two categories out of process. If you do not cease this, you will be dragged before ANI. Even if this category was created in jest, which is entirely possible, in other CFDs such categories have ended up surviving nonetheless. The Category:American men novelists category, which doesn't have a great name (I'd prefer male) has a lot of votes for keep, and it's certainly possible this is a subject of study (see [13] - there are hundreds of books written and published on the subject of ... wait for it.... male writers). So either you will prevail, and all gendered writing categories will be iced, or, both will remain - I can't see it remaining lopsided going forward. In any case, I can see from your history that you don't have much experience with CFD, and trust me when I tell you, BHG does. So please, stop depopulating - its only making things worse for you, especially after you have been clearly warned of the policies on this matter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting--I see I've been guilty of the same crime as Milowent. Obi-Wan Kenobi, I have already reverted you, since you didn't discuss my removal of the "woman" part. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I re-added her to the 'women' cats (didn't remove from the parent) - this will be sorted, but until then, those cats are valid and she certainly belongs - so please don't remove authors from valid cats until the discussion has finished. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's bullshit and you're just being pointy. Way to go. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Perhaps you could share exactly, and specifically, what is bullshit about adding someone to a category to which they clearly belong. Perhaps you don't realize that the bulk of comments on Category:American women novelists are urging it be KEPT and MERGED, which means by you REMOVING this author from that cat, you are leaving her out of a cat which dozens of editors have argued should be kept. So please keep your divisive and uncivil comments to yourself and try to convince me using reason. If you can't do so, stay out of wikipedia, which is for adults.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe you should stick to hyphens and disambiguation pages and leave the real content discussions to the people who actually known something about it. I could give you a more substantive answer, but it'd fall on deaf ears. You are obviously incapable of understanding that the "woman" addition is divisive and, according to newspapers we cite as reliable sources, risible. I dispute that Filipacchi "clearly belongs" to that category because I think that category is bogus, and so say a lot of contributors to that discussion. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Take your arguments to cfd, that is the proper place. By removing those cats you are in clear violation of clearly stated policy re: categorization and depopulating cats under discussion. Do you need me to quote the actual guidance on this?

Again, I don't care what newspapers are saying about categorization, those sources will be great for a NPOV article on this controversy but mean nothing to the processes currently in place, which I suggest you follow and stop reading ill informed newspaper articles. Anyone who has an opinion on the cfd is welcome to join. And your opinions on the bogusness of such categories are frankly irrelevant - make your argument to delete the cat but I'm quite sure you won't win, we have thousands of gendered cats, are you ready for a war? There are over 8000 categories with the word women in the title. What is so ridiculous about this whole thing is the coverage given to a small part of the tree - but since it happens to contain writers (many of whom who are still living!), they have been taking to ink to express their opinions. Unfortunately, while a lot of those writing and tweeting on this are certainly great writers, they don't understand wikipedia nor wikipedia processes nor wikipedia category structure. There is a formal proess for disputing categories, and that debate has garnered a lot of opinions, the bulk of which are for keep + merge. Again, please do not remove any more bios from categories under discussion. You have been warned.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I find the tone of the above comment by Drmies (who is a sysop) shocking. Whatever happened to wp:civility? (My apologies to the owner of this talkpage for interfering - I just could not keep quiet). Ottawahitech (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, Ottawahitech, you are free to express your opinion. So is Drmies, and especially here where he is so damn right.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Milowent - since I'm not that clear on your position. Will you defend to the death the Category:American women novelists and Category:American women writers, and send to the executioner Category:American men novelists and Category:American male writers? Your postings in the CFD were not fully clear to me but suggested that you supported the women cats and hated the men cats with a passion. If so, could you give a bit more reasoning behind this (as in logic, argument, sources, etc)? Do you believe study of male-written books, or male authorship, is not an actual field? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In brief, I think all novelists should be in the novelist category, I do not agree with putting only women in their own category and taking them out of the novelist category. A novelist is a novelist. I also don't agree with splitting up the entire a merican novelist category into two genders, penises don't write books, people do. I don't like the American women novelists category; whether a separate women's category is appropriate in addition to novelists is something outside the CFD in my view but Bearcat and others have expressed good views on that point. The study of male written books because they are written by males is far less of a thing then feminist literature, but I want to see Mark Twain and Harper Lee in a common category.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

But my reading of your responses in the CFD is to keep the Category:American women novelists category, keep the parent, and create a male child [14],[15]. The biggest CFD is *about* the Category:American women novelists category. I understand you don't think people should be taken out of the parent, but do you still agree the children should exist? And if the female child cat exists, why wouldn't the male child exist as well, given that there are people - fewer than for women, but real scholars - who study male literature and male novelists? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, a quick test - do you have any issues with the current set up of Category:American male prostitutes? If there are issues, what are they, and what fixes would you suggest? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think about prostitutes guys, and I don't care to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you avoiding the question, or does your outrage about "sexism" only apply to novelists? In other words, are you interested in systemically fixing this issue, or just addressing this one little part of the tree? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not avoiding the question, I just don't know the answer to everything. I don't write about prostitutes. I do write articles about novelists, and I improve articles; I'm not a category expert. But I know that the segregation of women in american women novelists only in a subcat was a major fuckup. You folks can put your heads in the sand when all the world's news media is pointing out a problem that needs to be addressed, and you can say "we need to solve everything before we solve one thing," but that's never been the way wikipedia has worked.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure what you mean by "you folks" - allow me to point out WP:EGRS, which is pretty clear that people should not be "ghettoized" as has happened with the women novelists. So a guidance exists to do exactly what you are asking - it just hasn't been implemented that well. I'm also not saying we need to solve everything, but I hope the attention of all of these editors won't fade away after the novelists are sorted and the bloggers move on, as the problems are endemic and need serious thought, consideration, and work to fix; WP:EGRS is quite difficult to implement in practice, at least to do so "perfectly"; I've pointed out elsewhere that many highly experienced editors don't understand it at all, and even old category pros like BHG and JPL sometimes mess it up. The reason I pointed out the Category:American male prostitutes category is that none of them are in the parent Category:American prostitutes cat - so if we are being fair, the men should also be bubbled up to that parent cat, for the same reason as the women novelists, and those being outraged about novelists should be equally outraged about this, but, I'm not expecting to see any NY times articles about how these poor fellows are being ghettoized by their gender. Would that differential in response be considered sexist - or worse, classist? Or would the lack of attention to massive other problems in other parts of the writers tree be considered nationalism? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop the baseless accusations

So far on the talk about Category:American women novelists you have made comparisons to both nazis and slavery, both of which are entirely uncalled for. You have also falsely accused me of advocating that "female presidents" should be called "presidentesses". I never advocated any such thing. Please stop trying to accuse people of racism or mass murder because they try to implement the categorization schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You should also refrain from calling people "Women-haters" and from comparing categorization to slavery or the mass killing of Jews, Gypsies, educated Poles and the many other groups killed in the Holocaust. Such comparisons are disturbing and uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Do you admit or deny that on your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"? Listen, I find your digging in on this category subject to be reprehensible. Numerous people on twitter, facebook, and other social media, and news stories, have identified you as a primary source of the problem. Your talk page is littered with examples of you making questionable decisions. I am only a symptom, you must find the problem in yourself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Milo, what the hell is going on here? Is there a wiki-wide discussion where these totally boneheaded categorizations are being discussed? Can they be undone automatically? Every single fucking newspaper in the world is laughing at us, and they're right. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• I found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24. I just removed Category:French women novelists and its American equivalent from Amanda Filipacchi--I'm sure you saw her piece in the NYT. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You found the right place, Drmies. Its complete insanity. Outside wikipedia, everyone sees the issue clearly. Inside, many re burying their heads in the sand. I tried to depopulate one category (american men novelists) that was clearly created as a joke (the creator put some women in there that use initials), and have been admonished for it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We can always pretend that all those outside readers are morons and don't understand the system. And in here, we can pretend that we're not really dividing everything up by gender. Next thing you know JPL here is cutting up every single one, since he started something he should finish rather than admit he was wrong. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I deny Milowent's above accusation. I have never advocated that a "female president" be refered to as a "presidentess". I have advocated that the wife of a president who has supervisory resposibility as a direct result of her being the wife of a president be referred to as a presidentess, but that is 100% different from the false accusation. As has been pointed out elsewhere there are many relibalbe sources that discuss women novelists as a group. We build on sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's right, we build on sources. Here's a source that says "Wikipedia's overwhelmingly male user-editors began the bizarre forced gender migration on Tuesday". That's Salon (website). Here's evidence of the controversy. That's International Business Times. We're sexist--says an op-ed in Forbes. Do you need anything more to add the word "shit storm" to Wikipedia? And it's far from over. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The salon peace is both wrong and biased. To claim that wikipedia's editors are "overwhelmingly male" is to ignore the fact that this calssification is based on long standing academic practice of treating women novelists as a group. The title is also inflamatory. "forced migrations" are things like the Turks expelling the Greeks in the early 1920s. They are not the creation of subcats. Anyway the category was began last October. The inaccuracies here are legion. In this case it is very clear that these outside writers do not understand how wikipedia operates and are not reliable sources for assesing how it operates. Plus, the most relevant issue here is the categorization of people in Category:American men novelists, which if we fully developed it would undermine these unfounded calls of "sexism".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's really quite sad how Drmies reads a Salon blog that says wikipedia is sexist and then concludes, somehow, that wikipedia *is* sexist. Wow. Do you believe everything you read out in the big bad world of the interwebs? Have you ever followed the debates at CfD, or on the categorization guidelines talk page? Do you understand what has led people to create gendered categories, and do you know who populates them, and do you understand the process of WP:Consensus? In other words, do you have any evidence at all for your assertions, or are you just parroting ill-informed media sources? To me thus far it looks sadly like the latter. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep tilting at windmills, guys, you ain't gonna change the minds of editors who live in the real world, at least part of the time. There's nothing unusual about being wrong or making a mistake in life; the only thing that matters then is what you do next. But don't blame the Salon "bloggers" for everything.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do not appreciate your continued insults of people whom you disagree with. Your tone, your attempts to marshall outside sources and use them as grounds for personal attacks and your multiple actions of emptrying categories under discussion against the clear directives of the categories for discussion page, as well as your down right lieing about what others have said has gone way too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you are no better. You too empty categories you want deleted and fill categories you want kept. And the fact that you dig in on category after category to the point of OWNership of CfD is disheartening pbp 17:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Milowent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

James R. Fouts

Thanks for your help on the James R. Fouts article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice for your personal attacks

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• "may have been involved"? MAY HAVE? I have responded. BTW, I admit I was incorrect in my interpretation of your outside-wikipedia reference to "presidentess." I apologize for that. Though I believe its a minor point in the substantive context.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but the "may have" comes from the template - JPL didn't write that. cheers :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but if you are going to take someone to ANI and name the subject "User:Milowent has engaged in unsupported personal attacks, insults and disruptive emptying of categories under discussion," one should have the common decency to alter the template!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah - ok I see your point. I guess I've been guilty of that too - just dropping the standard template. I figured it was safest, since the wording is neutral. But you have a point too. cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Quiz

Is that your final answer? I just want to make sure - the goal was not just to confirm or delete existing cats, but also to find ones that are missing (what I'm now calling "de-ghettoizing" cats) - I saw you only added one or two. As of now, you'd have an 'F', which equates to several NY times articles. Sorry - it's hard. But if you want to give it another shot go for it, I wasn't sure if you understood several new cats had to be added.

also, if you haven't had enough obiwan for one day, please take a look at these two:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#On_structural_and_categorical_sexism - where I expound at great length on the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and the problematic definition of categorical sexism

Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - where I demonstrate a prototype for category intersection that works, and that we can use today. (this gets to your point about doing arbitrary intersections of facets of a person.). This doesn't get us all the way there, but editors could define the most common ones, and then anyone else could tweak and get their own answers. So essentially, you would put people as "novelist", "american", "woman", "lesbian", "African american", "Catholic", etc.

Thanks again for taking the quiz though, I do appreciate you making the effort. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm ok if you fail me. I would never look for nearly as many cats as that has, on any article, and I've only been written about positively by the New York Times, so I'm ok with it. I look forward to reading your other links above.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isabel Mallon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report

Good! I had no idea this was happening.

Is it easy for you to extract the traffic stats for the highest viewed articles on other Wikipedias? Could be worth highlighting interesting stats occasionally?

And how many of the 10 this week appeared on the main page? That would be something to factor in, I guess. Tony (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) PS I see from above that you were at the centre of the US novelist category thing. Please consider not doing this in future. Tony (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tony I understand it is possible to track stats from other wikipedias. That is far beyond my capability though, User:West.andrew.g is the brilliant editor who created WP:5000, and his capacity has not permitted him to go beyond the English wikipedia. You should check out this trending articles tool however, it does report on the most popular articles in the last 1-24 hours for other wikipedias. Ideally I'd love to see similar reports for other wikipedias on a weekly basis which we could use to do cultural comparisons. And re articles on the main page, to reach the Top 25 we do at WP:TOP25, we are seeing it usually takes around 300,000 views. None of the Top 10 this week appeared on the main page, and its likely it has not happened since we started tracking this in January, unless an already popular article happened to be featured. Being featured on the main page for one day doesn't seem generate enough views. The alltime stats at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/Most_viewed suggest it would be rare.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• P.S. Its a long story, I'm not really at the centre, but perhaps over a virtual drink sometime I could explain myself better. JPL could be invited, too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry about forgetting to get back in contact with you, I left a message on my talk page but that probably wasn't the best place. ;-) Given the report's reception, I'd be happy to move it to a weekly basis, if you are still interested. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A friendly beer

For inserting some much needed humor into these discussions. Your idea about zip codes made me chuckle, and simultaneously, reflect on the inane craziness of this whole story. So, thanks for that! cheers Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious

article rescue
Thank you for quality articles, created from redlinks off the most popular list, and rescued from deletion, for a dear welcome here and for singing the "Speedy Keep" song, - you are not forgotten today but proclaimed an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 483rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Milowent. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Top25(May19)

LOTS of weird spikes this week:

• Haggis: I appreciate the aftertaste of lung as much as anyone, but why is this so high? Is it another "Google Nose"-style prank?
• Smart glass: could people be mistaking it for Google Glass?
• Fulla Nayak: The world's oldest woman, who died in 2006. No reason why she would be big this week.

Definite removals as they link to redirects:

• HSDPA:
• Paladium: (and spambots apparently can't spell)

Maybe it's just me:

• Attack on Titan: It fits the bill; popular TV series ending this month, but I'm a bit perplexed as to how it ended up on the English Wikipedia, since as far as I can tell it hasn't been shown outside Japan.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Serendi^podous 08:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

the Signpost

Hi Milowent,

I see from your userpage that you like statistics (thanks btw for the links). If I understood it right, the Signpost (I think it was by The ed17 - sorry I lost the reference) is looking for a reporter for a column on wiki-stats. Just thought I would pass this on to you in case you are interested. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra

A while back I created an article about a model named Jessica Dykstra. He article was reviewed and deleted. You were part of the debate. Anyway, she's going to be on Jimmy Kimmel Live tonight. Does that bring her to the level of notability that her article can be restored?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rich Homie Quan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rich Homie Quan 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/Rich Homie Quan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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. STATic message me! 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement

Hello, Milowent: The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections. Diurnality Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Figured I'd send you a notification (which also serves as an invitation), per your great work in improving Wikipedia articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian

Hi, I'd appreciate if you could address the specific points I have made about the Ana Kasparian article. I just don't see there being sufficient grounds to keep the article at the moment. If you look at the most recent AfD, the vote count was 6-5 in favour of either delete or merge. The "keep" votes did not address the basic criteria outline under WP:BASIC, so should not be considered informed participants to the discussion. Namely, they did not address the fact that a topic can be well known, and still not be a suitable subject of an article if there aren't enough independent reliable sources that discuss the topic. At the moment, the article simply doesn't have any such sources, unless you count the Armenian one, which frankly I cannot evaluate fairly. So, unless we can find more independent sources (which may well exist, but the burden of proof falls to those wanting to maintain the article to find them) I think that the article should be merged, as was advised at the AfD, but discussion was subsequently dropped. Thanks for addressing this issue, either by finding better sources, or by making a policy based argument. Thanks! Peregrine981 (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion the subject crosses the threshold of notability. I realize that her notability is subject to debate, which is why we have had AfDs. Personally I also consider the popularity of the article an positive indicator of notability in cases like this. E.g., cf. Zane B. Stein (currently in a drawn out AfD despite obvious lack of notability), which gets minimal views, to Kasparian, which has 25,000 views in the past 30 days. I see no overriding reason why the article should not exist, its part of a coherent scheme for coverage of the young turks and primary involved persons.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to this at the article page. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Were you planning on continuing our discussion? Shall I take your silence as agreement with my last point? If so, can I go ahead and merge the article? Please, I just want to wrap this up at some sort of consensus. Thanks! Peregrine981 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree. Start a new AfD if you want to try to find consensus, as a posse of one person who wants to merge is not that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For starting the article and your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Homie Quan. It's been getting 6000 views a day lately. It is currently listed as #763 in the top 5000 list of the most viewed articles on English Wikipedia. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sex drive-in

Excellent work. Yes, the Amsterdam one is closed--for safety reasons, I think. The one in Groningen is still there, considering this little notification. Perhaps you can add a section on metaphorical use of the term and include this one here. See you at DYK! Drmies (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, I love the White House reference. It says alot about Dutch culture that such a use could be conceived of. To think I never knew this institution existed before yesterday, really I am an ignoramus. I am interested to know who coined the term, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, Milowent. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sex drive-in

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Blogosphere

Milowent, are you behind this tomfoolery? (Links below). It appears to be certain.

• milowent.blogspot.com
• Twitter - milowent
• blogger - 11970503858469369658

Who do you think you are?! Hah hah hah! Interesting commentary. What's the dancing guy listening to the Walkman all about on the Twitter page? Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, NA, I missed this comment before, yes that's all me. The walkman guy just struck me as a funny ad -- its from an mid 1980s music magazine.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I'm was on a wikibreak (now a semi-wikibreak), hence the delay in response. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Sex drive-in article, and for all of your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Greetings from an old friend. Sjcyoung (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited August Alsina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vibe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fort Lupton, Colorado may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• grades 9-12.<ref name="pop">[http://flhs.weld8.org/?PageName=%27AboutTheSchool%27 About the School (Fort Lupton High School], Weld-8 School District, Retrieved 1 October 2013</ref> A controversy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Time (Paris Hilton song)

see also: User_talk:Tbhotch#Good_Times--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Good Time (Paris Hilton song). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't create the article and just edited it within the last 15 minutes. Get consensus if you want to nuke it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes ownership. And ownership is not about "I didn't create it" is about disallowing other people from editing the page upon personal bias. Your edits are a blatant violation of an attempt to edit-war] over something that violates WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. If Applause wasn't created until two weeks later after its announcement despite the references, if Artpop was deleted and WP:SALTED multiple times, and multiple similar examples, why Paris Hitlon is an exception to the clause "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", the article doesn't explain why the song is or will be notable, just says "Good Time is a song by Paris Hilton featuring Lil Wayne. It was released yesterday and it will have a music video". A normal popular culture reader doesn't come here for information they already know. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Uncivil? the only person who is being "uncivil" here is you, first commenting "you uncivil person, you"--like if that demostrate your civility--as if redirect an article under WP:NGSONGS' guide were "uncivil" and a personal attack. Also, you are taking this personal, as if this were against you or Paris Hilton, which demostrates lack of maturity from your part. Also, if a song fails WP:NSONGS regardless the references, it has to be redirected until it demostrates a) it charted, b) it won an award, or c) it was covered, per community consensus, the only exceptions are those that demostrate notability outside the parent album or artist; if you don't like the guide go and change it. Also, AFD is useless as the song eventually will chart in the next seven days, if AFDed the song will chart while it occurs as happened with Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na) and other songs. So stop taking this as if where an "attack" against your contributions, because it is not, and if a song doesn't demostrate why a standalone article should exist excluding its "notability aside", as the guide says, *anyone* can redirect the song until there is enough material to re-create it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• "AFD is useless as the song eventually will chart in the next seven days." If you believe this to be so, why are wasting your time on the article at all? We have literally millions of articles to be written on historical topics of real importance, and you are worrying about whether an article exists a few days too soon for a Paris Hilton single? Hmmm.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for contributing to the article and for the kind words you posted on my talk page the other day. Soulbust (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thigh gap listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thigh gap. Since you had some involvement with the Thigh gap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Robofish (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Prairie Wife may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• page/n159/mode/1up The Prairie Wife (review)], ''[[Film Daily]]''</ref> ''[[Variety (magazine|Variety]]'' wrote that "for a cheap picture, it should more than get the production cost
• archive.org/stream/variety78-1925-05#page/n104/mode/1up The Prairie Wife (review)], ''[[Variety (magazine|Variety]]''</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Just a Wife, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Burton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thigh gap

Hello, as you commented on Thigh gap's RfD, you may be interested in the new article Thigh gap and its associated DYK. Thank you.--Launchballer 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Senator (play) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• loc.gov/lccn/sn85054468/1900-11-06/ed-1/seq-5/ The Lafayette - The Senator], ''The Times (Washington, D.C.'' (reporting on third-week of 1900 run in Washington, D.C.)</ref><ref name="1903ny"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I have created an article about Musikhjälpen. Take a look. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Senator (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morning Call (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Howdy Milowent

You have an edit on the discombobulation of anthony holland. You may remember delinking it. Well The Anthony Holland page is up again for a moment at least and I was wondering if it was ok with you to relink it up or if waiting might be a better idea . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Top 25

It's a weird one this week. Could use some help over on the talk page if you're interested. Thanks. Serendi^podous 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)