User talk:Mr Miles

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Please undo your edit warring. If you're seeing the article as a vehicle for 12th-stepping, you're in the wrong place. PhGustaf (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I wasn't edit warring, just reverting a change that hadn't been discussed properly. Am I being sensitive or did you overreact there? 12th-stepping?! Mr Miles 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the change was discussed properly. Perhaps I did overreact. Anyway, let's wait for other opinions on the matter. Thanks for your efforts on the page. PhGustaf (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the Alexander and Rollins concluded that AA used the same techniques that a researcher named Lifton identified as “thought reform” (brainwashing, but without the additional baggage that brainwashing holds) and those techniques where also used in cults. Now we get into the argument of wither that makes them a cult or not… Alexander and Rollins thought that any thought reform was negative and thus AA was a cult…while Kevin Wright (1997) in another study found that those techniques where seen as beneficial and thus AA wasn’t a cult. I actually added the text “And Kevin [Wright], in a study of several members, concluded that although the [Lifton] techniques [were] present in the Alexander and Rollins study, the conclusion that AA was a cult was erroneous because AA bore little semblance to religious cults because the techniques appeared beneficial in AA.[6]^ Wright, K[B] (1997) "Shared Ideology in Alcoholics Anonymous: A Grounded Theory Approach". Journal of Health Communication, Volume 2, pp. 83–99” to the cult page, but it was rejected by the editors.

I hope this helps outCoffeepusher (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Coffeepusher, that's great, I'm going to propose reinserting it. Mr Miles 15:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

ok, so this newcomer (not really, but they have edited sparaticly over the years and nothing ever stuck) came to the aa page with a machette and an attitude (check out the "sandy edit" section of the aa talk). we have all tried to reason with them on both their talk page and on the aa talk page. when I logged on I found out that they had incerted their edits yet again (both me, PH, and Scrappy have all reverted the change) and then you made your edits. the only way I could figure out how to fix everything was to revert back to ph's edit (thus deleting your edits) and then incert your edits back as best I could. I hope I did a good job, because I did like your edits. sorry for the confusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit tired (already) of MrAlbert and his various aliases making very silly edits. There appears to be almost no understanding. I suppose we just have to keep fighting the good fight, but really... Any suggestions? AussieBoy (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, not been on Wiki for a while. There is no good solution to MrAlbert and his sockpuppets (although you can try to report him, he's been banned many times). He loves the fast revert and is prepared to stay up all night, slow motion reverts work best (or at least they have on the AA article). Your edits are appreciated and important - check out this link to see why:

http://stats.grok.se/

Good luck!

Mr Miles (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Fred Woofy (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)==You have been cited by Seicer and the AA page locked down==[reply]

It has become obvious to other editors that you have purged the Alcoholics Anonymous page of most information that could possibly be viewed as negative. This has been noted as simply unaccpetable hence the need for Seicer to lock down down the Alcholics Anonymous page.

I have found what in my opinion your biases in editing completely unacceptable as well. The Wiki is to provide inforamtion not to act as a shill for a particular organization.

--Fred Woofy (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, why did Seicer lock down the version with your edits removed, the version that you claim to be my POV (which is actually the version of consensus by the other editors)? Why do you keep getting banned and keep making edits described by other editors as 'silly' and with 'no understanding' (see post by AussieBoy above)? Mr Miles (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Miles, my edits are still there, he locked the page with my edits intact, look at Charles B. Towns hospital and the edit concerning Wilson's treatment by Belladonna, Town's cure for addiction.

Most of the complaints have come from you and a couple of others who are involved in this organization Mr. Miles. Seicer reviewed your edits Mr. Miles and found them unacceptable. You were keeping information off the page. You have even attempted to get me banned this last time around. However if you take a look the web page I have added , the page on Charles B. Towns, it has not only been been accepted but also improved upon by more experienced editors. It was not deleted, which seems to be a habit of yours. It doesn't surprise me that you would be attempting another ban on editiors on this page, especially since the fact that Wilson underwent the Belladonna cure, has now been added to the page. How you managed to overlook this part of AA history amazes me and others. The editing I have done is good. Not from you opinion I acknowleddge. It appears to me that for you , Reality bites , a metaphor. Your editing has left me wondering Mr. Miles, since in the past you aggressively deleted important and vital information, is your purpose here to sell the organization, and if so, do you do it by restricting the contributions of other editors? If you notice the lock down occured with the information concerning the Bella Donna cure intact, and the POV at the introduction to the article removed. The POV you kept adding back in. It is gone Mr. Miles. --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my talk page to discuss the AA article, use the discussion board provided. Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Miles , is your purpose here to sell this Alcoholics Anonymous by restricting what can and cannot be posted here?--Fred Woofy (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretending to be two people? Mr Miles (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gaming the system

Entire sections on the studies section of Alcoholics Anonymous being removed, leaving only those favouring AA, resulting in an edit war and editors banned from posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcoholics+Anonymous&diff=197618867&oldid=197618528 Administrator Seicer this July 2008, commented on the housecleaning tactics to remove anything negative concerning Alcoholics Anonymous was unacceptable.

A wiki page titled the

another example of threats to ban using by Mr Miles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanton_Peele&action=history

Mr. Miles revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanton_Peele&diff=224464242&oldid=224255854

The statement contained in the Miles revert: This last award, however, is often attributed to Cold War hysteria, and is no longer recognized by most alcohol governing bodies.

The reference that was attached to the above statement: http://www.peele.net/aab/keller.html

The reference does not contain any wording to the above statement. The editor removing the above statement was simply engaged in reverting bad POV editing. Other information deleted by Mr Miles in the revert were: Other acknowldegements have come in the The Creation of the Annual Stanton Peele Lecture, 1998, by the Addiction Studies Program, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia and a Lifetime Achievement Award, 2006, International Network on Personal Meaning.

Miles reverts included POV wording was added such as "attempts to debunk".

I am posting this so editors have an awareness of what lies behind the editing wars on Acoholics Anonymous.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretending to be more than one person? MisterAlbert and Fred Woofy are clearly the same person - let's face it, they broke the mold, didn't they! Mr Miles (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Hanson: His main web site is funded by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.^[1]

"The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc. provided an unrestricted grant that was used to fund this web site, for which funding also was received from other sources." Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello miles, long time no chat etc. Hope all's well...

Just looking at the talk page on AA Effectiveness and you state that there is a logical error in the abstract of the study Fred/Albert mentioned (the sweedish one...)

Not agreeing or disagreeing, am just curious - what is the flaw? I just can't see it.

The only other thing I would say is that you mention the study is TSI (or TSF...) - presumably if this is a reason to remove it then Match should also be removed? just a minor point, as I can';t be bothered with wiki-wars any more.

I would be really interested to hear about the Albert study flaw though. Also, do you have a link to the abstract?

Thank you Step13thirteen (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all's well with me thanks.

The part with the error is:

Students showed significant differences in AUDIT score reduction in favor of the BSTP compared with controls, and had a tendency to show better results than the TSI intervention. The TSI did not differ significantly from the control group.

So the abstract is stating:

BSTP = significantly better than CONTROL

BSTP = better results than TSI

TSI = not significantly different than CONTROL

Those three statements can't all be true. If the BSTP is significantly better than CONTROL, and CONTROL is not significantly different to TSI, then it follows that BSTP should be significantly different to TSI not merely better.

I'm being pedantic, but as a summary the abstract should be error free if we're to include it, else the whole thing may be wrong. My point was that we should be reading original articles, not just googling abstracts. I have the actual article if you're interested in reading it and providing a summary for the article? I just don't have time at the moment but I can email it to you if you like.

How's it going with you?

Mr Miles (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yes, I'd love a copy of the study. Would be good to be able to get something useful done for wiki. Too much of my time is spent on talk-pages, when I am here.

I'm good, but not really focussing on anything addiction treatment related at the moment.

My email is [email protected] - Whenever you can - no rush. Step13thirteen (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a graduate student with the University of Colorado Boulder, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whom is more belligerent, fairness is an issue, and I can't report Jayseer and leave you out of it. Also, if you could not use edit summaries to attack other editors, that would help make comity possible. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page Mr Miles (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. If you had id'd his block log, I would have had more information to act on. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicions seem well-placed, Jayseer has admitted to being Mr Albert, but admins are giving him a mulligan, as long as he is not disruptive. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted three different editors over the "paedophile" issue. While this is not necessarily 3RR, it indicates a need to listen to why the edits were made on the talk page, as opposed to merely undoing edits made by other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem here is that you appear to be edit warring, but Imho, so are the others. In my experience, the editor with the least experience will usually lose, and get sanctioned, despite the unfairness. please be careful with future reverts. if you do get sanctioned, you wont be able to continue improving the project. The other thing to note is that Newimpartial is also edit warring. Think about it. best. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rab V (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for continuing an edit war after being warned about the

WP:EW policies. --184.153.150.57 (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You wanted accuracy in the article Trans woman. You deserve a kitten! (i didn't finish reading the Talk page discussion though, cuz it is tedious)

Heikocvijic (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, only just saw this. Thanks for the kitten, it certainly is hard arguing against the religious! Mr Miles (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a filing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mr_Miles regarding your behavior on trans woman and other articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from

WP:GENSEX

(gender and sexuality), broadly construed, for an indefinite period of time. This includes all pages on the English Wikipedia, including your own pages.

You have been sanctioned As per the discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1100791508&oldid=1100787483 ]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

After reviewing certain comments you made on the talk page for [Judith Butler] on November 5th, 2020, I've chosen to leave this message here-- being myself a Transgender Wikipedian, I found your language distressing, and wish to bring it here, partially to give you (in fairness) the opportunity to acknowledge the disruptive nature of this sort of rhetoric, and take responsibility for it-- but also (noting that you've recently been topic-banned for edit-warring over LGBTQ+ related issues) intending bring some attention to the way in which this sort of stuff can continue to negatively impact the culture of our encyclopedia and our editing community-- and continue to negatively impact your reputation as an editor, even years afterwards. I hope that I can reinforce the importance of fairness and neutrality for you, going forwards.

The topic at hand appears to have been the American philosopher Judith Butler's preference for the use of They/Them pronouns-- on which you commented,

" ... this highly political ideology (critical theory), has infected many of our institutions in the last few years, including dictionaries. Regarding plural they, it will be dropped once the detransitioners class-action lawsuits start."

This sort of language is disruptive. I note again that you've already received a topic-ban for precisely this sort of disruptive conduct. It's really, really important to stay neutral when you're talking about a biography of a living person, regardless of your personal political beliefs. If you were to have actually edited the article in question, having spoken this way in connection with an edit, then you may have found yourself facing serious consequences then. As it is, you eventually did; and I hope this can provide some context for the necessity of learning from the past, and changing the way that you think and act.

As it is, no harm appears to have been done, and the other editors involved in the discussion simply ignored you, and moved on-- that's what we're supposed to do when something appears inflammatory, or intended to provoke, instead of engaging with it. In the long term, it benefits you to espouse the same principle of neutrality and non-combativeness, when something provokes you to involve your personal, political beliefs in an unproductive fashion.

I realize that, in writing this lengthy letter, I've involved myself in the same fashion that I have just recommended against-- the difference is that this is done out of courtesy and respect. Going forwards, I strongly advise you to grant these two things the same importance which compelled me to take an hour out of my day to compose this for you.

I should also note that, in making this letter public, I do not seek to unnecessarily harm you in the eyes of other editors; it is against our ethic to comment on each others' character, which I have not done. We prefer instead to help each other by talking over the positives and negatives of the things that we do, and not the positives and negatives of who we are and why we do them. This is a conflict-aversion measure as much as it is simple politeness, and I hope that you reciprocate it going forwards.

 Atomic putty? Rien!  20:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your topic ban, as you did at Talk:Graham Linehan.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Is it reasonable to block someone indefinitely for pointing out (on a talk page) that the career section of the Wiki article on a very famous comedy writer is only a 5th of the size of the section on his activism - eg tweets the comedy writer made are given more prominence in the article than the very famous TV series Father Ted that he wrote? Mr Miles (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's very reasonable given that you were openly editing in violation of your topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• I've removed Mr Miles' access to their talk page due to their continuing insults of another user. See [1] and [2]. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]