User talk:Uncle Milty/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Uncle. [1] Why is that vandalism? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the misleading edit summary "correction of spelling on 'George'". Is that it? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That, and it's a continuation of a long line of attempts by SPA's to add Lauren Aquilina to WP anywhere they can. This user's first two edits merely failed to follow the infobox template's guidelines for Associated Acts additions, so I assumed good faith. The edit summary you mentioned changed my view on the underlying motives. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will keep an eye out for Lauren Aquilina being sneaked in. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 14:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The "History" portion of the article on "Calixarenes" is seriously flawed, and I submitted a revised version which, for some reason, has been removed. I am often referred to as the "Godfather of Calixarenes" and am responsible for coining the name "calixarenes" and developing the chemistry of these compounds. The author of the article on calixarenes has not been very careful in getting the historical facts correct; some of them are totally wrong and must be corrected. C. David Gutsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.David Gutsche (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the article's talk page. If the history is indeed wrong, then you can fix it. You'll need to cite your changes, however. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I just like to say my opinion about this link [A list of online Audio Engineers] that you reverted as being promotional external link. Honestly I had no bad intention since it a an open network where every audio engineer in the world can become part of it. No one is obligated to buy anything, even the site encourage visitors to interact with the audio engineer or ask them any question or advises for FREE. Since it is place for Audio Engineers, I think it is a really good contribution. Does any other of the sites that offer free mixing software but in fact are made for selling mixing software or is made for Google AdSense fits better here?Fr3eStyleR-Mk (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The website exists to sell services. It is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Although this is a bit off-topic, I made this not-Lorem Ipsum thing. It's a

02:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 08:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Guidice 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/James Guidice 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. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Uncle Milty,
Thank you for your kind welcoming message! I am here to learn how Wikipedia works. I hope this is the correct place to post an answer to your message on my user
page's talk page. There you wrote that "some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes". I did not edit any other page, just my 
profile, adding some external links to where I work and who I am to be completely transparent. I naturally intend to comply with all policies, so please help me 
identify the exact parts that are not welcome here and I'm absolutely open to removig them. Thank you very much for your help in advance!
Kind regards,
--Drpenzesjanos (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

After reading the second version of this, I have decided to allow it, while asking the user to change her username. Bamworks looks like a one-person website, not as commercial as "...works" makes it sound (I don't know about you, but it immediately made me think of the recent Gibraltar scandal) and her first edits have been innocuous. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Makes sense to me. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Uncle Mitty, My name is John Goodsall & while it has been nice to have info about me on Wikipedia i find lately they have allowed vandalism & misinfirmation about me. I'd prefer not to be on Wikipedia if that has to be the case. Thanks for your interest - John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibchs (talk • contribs) 05:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing how something like that would normally be handled, I started a discussion here. They will know what to do. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Uncle Milty,

Is Wikipedia a Promotion Tool for big Websites? I added a Website to the list of Online Dating Websites, and you reverted my Edition as not notable. As i understand wikipedia it is an encyclopedia of knowledge collecting worldwide. For me knowledge is not only based on knowledge about the big players in world. I don´t want to offend you with this post. i just want to tell you my way of thinking.

Regards,

WikiFan74. talk | 09:30, 5 March 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFan74 (talk • contribs)

The article

Comparison of online dating websites only contains websites that already have their own Wikipedia articles. It is not the place to promote new or not-well-known websites. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 08:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see [2]]. Only to teach me and explain to me what was done and how I can proceed in the future when I come across a similar situation (which is often). Background: I use "Recent changes" to find redlinked newbies and I welcome them. In the process, I see articles such as this that are obvious self-promotions or blatant advertising. Usually I ignore them but this morning I decided to begin getting involved in the "cleaning process". I went to WP:COI/N and was reading when I noticed that you had placed a tag "db-spamuser" on the article w/CSD-11 as the explanation. Questions: How were you informed that a COI article had been created? Where do I go to educate myself about this whole "deleting obvious self promoting articles" process? Thanks in advance...Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPAM is really more relevant to the issue. Of course, I'm not deleting them, I'm just tagging them so that admins can make the final determination on the 'spamminess' of the article or user page. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 15:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So.....do you just run across them like I do...or is there a system that hi-lights them for editors like you to "see" and correct? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just run across them. Over time I've gotten better at spotting commercial-sounding user names, but that's about it. As far as I know there is no easy automatic system for spotting them. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway - thought you might be interested in this. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note for yourself and tell all your other My Little Pony (MLP) fans this simple message: you are in the wrong place. Go and create a MLP wiki on

) 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well done for spotting and documenting. Next stage is start tagging the pages for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I was in trouble for a second there. If anyone else wants to see the list: User:Uncle Milty/Pony invasion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is some strange stuff. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)" There is absolutely NOTHING unconstructive about my edits to Energy Tower or to Midland, Texas. Everything that I have added is relevant and verifiable fact/history about both the history of Energy Tower and Midland, Texas' demolition of historic architecture. If you continue to undo my edits I will immediately revert them which is completely allowed by Wikipedia. I have done nothing that you haven't done or the other editors of Energy Tower and Midland, Texas. If you don't "condone" my methods then you also don't condone your own methods or Wikipedia's entire reason for existing. If you believe that my edits are vandalism then you must believe that your edits are vandalism as well because you have done nothing different than I have. Actually, that's not true. What you and the other vandals have done is to hide the truth and help to deceive both the communities of Midland, Texas and Wikipedia. Why do you think it is acceptable for you and your vandals to change my correct and verifiable information to innaccurate statistics and lies, but it is not accecptable for me to correct your mistakes? Don't you think that's a little two-faced?

If you continue to vandalize my edits I will be happy to report you, Uncle Milty, and the other vandals to Wikipedia. Yours truly Perrys Conscience Perrys Conscience (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

UNCLE MILTY - Please stop YOUR disruptive editing. I have not violated Wikipedia no original research policy and I have not added my your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Energy Tower (Midland, Texas),

You Uncle Milty may also be blocked from editing.Perrys Conscience (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As you, yourself have said "[you] am only human, I sometimes make mistakes. Edits I revert, I generally revert as they appear to be vandalism of some sort. If you believe I have made a mistake, just undo my edit, and leave me a message pointing it out to me here." So that's what I will continue to do.

Your assessment of this situation is outrageously unfair and does not live up to the purposes and intent of Wikipedia. Perrys Conscience (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 14:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently placed a notability stamp on the Point-of-Rental Systems page; however, if you click on the links within the box, such as "news" you will see a list of different magazines and articles that have written about this company. In addition, the references listed seem to be quite notable for their industry. NASA1983 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of the link to the RER award listing, all of the other links are merely to self-published press releases.

Self-published sources do not meet the standards for reliable sources. Without more reliable sources, the notability of the subject of the article remains in question. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised by this remark of Uncle Milty. Referenced items especially e-news are highly notable. All other sources are independent reliable sources. Short films which are not just limited to YouTube but screened worldwide at 'notable' places. I really don't understand now what Wikipedia meant by 'notable'. You mean just high profile news? Amytrish (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are located at

WP:FILMMAKER --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 12:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention Uncle Milty I was considering using Twinkle or rollback here. Glad you intervened. Putting it through a discussion again at articles of deletion would be the just way forward. Casper

Please do NOT revert the article for deletion sticker on the page. It has been caused by a person who has NO justification and is unaware that this article wen through an extensive justification process in a prior nomination for deletion over one week ago. The person the, who nominated it for deletion WITHDREW the deletion.

Since then, I have received a barnstar for the article by Northamerica1000^(talk)

I cannot keep defending the article left right and center just because someone decides to refer it for deletion without any basis or justification whatsoever. It is over one months work. This is getting ridiculous.

Therefore I have removed the afd sticker as it is nothing but vandalism.

If you wish to discuss this with me, please do.

Jono2013 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Do not under any circumstances remove a AFD tag from any article currently being discussed at AFD.

2. You received a barnstar for your work on the article, not for the article itself.

3. It's not your article. You don't

own it

. While your work on it is certainly appreciated, it remains a collaborative work and as such is subject to editing and review by others.

Please also do your best to remain

civil when dealing with other editors here. The vast majority of us have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, so don't assume that anyone is out to get you when they are simply in the process of making Wikipedia as a whole they best they can. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 19:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

NOW you're nominating important photos for deletion, making SPURIOUS comments of which you have NO Knowledge, without discussing first. Your comments are absolutely embarrassing to you. You're making a complete and utter fool of yourself. They are NOT images belonging to LTU. They are photos belonging to Valdimir Ronin who allowed granted me the right to place them on Wikipedia WITHOUT restriction. Just as the images in the pictorial insert. Jono2013 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You lied about the source of the images when you uploaded them. Wikipedia must be very careful to have accurate source information for all images, as lawyers are very expensive. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

IN WHAT WAY DID I LIE???? Be Very careful making such accusations. Jono2013 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You claimed the images were your "own work" when you uploaded them, yet in [this diff] you tell us that they were not your own work. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not lying. Curb your language. At worst, it was a genuine mistake on an interpretation issue. You are making a fool of yourself. The point is whether or not I was granted copyright in the image for the purposes of upload, to the extent the holder was prepared to allow me to treat the images as my own work. Period. I was. You know nothing of copyright law. I made no warranty regarding Paris Convention rights. The point is they were NEVER LTU photos, as you have "shot your mouth out". Again, discussing first rather than making wild unsubstantiated allegations is not only courtesy, but will in the future stop you from making a fool of yourself. If you actually read the rest of the thread from which you selectively quoted, you will see I make the point very clearly and that was during a process of substantiation whereby NOBODY raised your point. I don't know who you are, but you have made a very serious allegation, which is egregious and without substantiation. It is noted. Jono2013 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no gray area in regards to copyright on Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you know? You're not a lawyer. No lawyer would make such an egregious allegation. They would watch their mouth. Because the ONLY words that are NOT grey are YOUR words stating that I am a LYER.

Your conduct is most troll-like and will kill Wikipedia of serious scientific articles. Mark my words. But what do you care?

20:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry. Let me put it this way: You committed a fraudulent action by choosing to pretend to be the owner of the copyright on those images. In the process you chose to release those images to the world with a license that bypasses the copyrights of the actual owner(s) of the images. That's not proper behavior here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

WHICH OWNERS???? You are not a lawyer. You have no idea what copyright I owned. You dont understand copyright law, and not not only do you accuse me of being a "lyer", but now also of committing a "fraudulent act". You give the appearance of being an arrogant prig. Are you? Jono2013 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"As for the photos, the photos were supplied by EMC Cement BV or Professor Ronin. And yes, I registered the photos as being my own work, because that was the most efficient way of uploading." - You, as written here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point? You have inaccurately stated that the images belong to LTU. You accuse me of being a "lyer" and then committing a "fraudulent act". So which OWNERS? And I am happy to state that I owned the copyright to place onto Wikipedia. End of story. If you'd have posted your quesry on my talk page I could have clarified. You will also NOTE that despite the lengthy discussion the first time around, that NOBODY took issue. If I have made a mistake by misapplying settled copyright law with respect to some arcane policy on wikipedia which is in conflict with the usual norms of copyright privilege, then it was an honest mistake. But I dont think I have made a mistake - let alone acted in the manner your mouth seems to engage in accusing me of, before your brain. I am a retired 58 year old senior life sciences academic. Who ARE you????

Would you prefer Ronin upload the pictures? Despite the fact I was granted copyright for the purposes of uploading on wiki - as has been made perfectly plain before and not contested - let alone invoking the TORRENT of abuse that you have rained against me? Would that massage your "needs"? Who ARE you???

Jono2013 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed [[File:Concrete Durability Test per Brache.png]] [[File:Brache_Concrete_Durability_Test.svg]] Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I skipped it as it isn't being used in any article at the moment. Someone will nominate it. You can, if you'd like. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

Hi. I've struck your warning at

talk

) 20:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also inappropriate for a new user to test the waters by making small unnecessary or erroneous edits to a number of different articles within minutes of creating an account. Please look at the editor's contribution history before admonishing me. Thank you. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, new users often make such edits. Please read

talk

) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 20:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, Great that you have cleaned the page Vasant Vihar, Delhi. Its a locality of high end so marketting people try to present themself big by writing their client's name there. I am a doctor in a hospital in the same locality and felt bad that you have erased name of our hospital from that page. Holy Angels Hospital is providing medical and dental facilities in Vasant Vihar since last 25years. We felt proud as name of our hospital was on this page since begining. Kindly revert at [email protected] Regards Dr Sourabh Nagpal Head of Dept. Dept of Dentistry Holy Angels Hospital Vasant Vihar New Delhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.187.201 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate that your facility is notable to you, it is not really notable enough for mention in an international encyclopedia. That article as a whole has an improperly promotional tone and over time will have as much overtly promotional content remove so that it conforms with Wikipedia guidelines. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you find any concrete obsessed IPs that geolocation to Sweden, it is probably one of the socks. I just blocked one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That one seemed to be doing a good job of treading that fine line between promotional and useful additions, but there was obviously some COI there. I running a rake through their favorite article at the moment, so we'll see how that goes. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 09:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 22:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 11:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I just started using Wikipedia and want to make additions to content on other pages. I didn't know what to put on the USER page, so I just put our firm name and url. Apparently that was incorrect, so I removed it. What is supposed to go on the User page? I did not mean to violate any ToS.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfmlaw (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues. First, I tagged your page for deletion because it appeared to be blatantly promotional. It is ok to talk about oneself on their user page, but having nothing more than an organization's name and contact info crosses a line into promotional territory. Second: When you say "our", is this intended to be the law firm's account, or a community account of some kind? These types of accounts are not allowed here. Only single-user accounts are allowed, per

these guidelines. If you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact me here. You can also start a discussion on your own user page and include this in your discussion: {{Help me}}. This will summon other experienced editors who can answer your questions. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 20:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fairy Tale Murders

Hello,

I see that you deleted my page for copyright issues. My book title and book was copyrighted in 2010 with Copyright.gov. I apologize for not adding this to the article I will be sure to do so. The bottom of each page of my book reads "Copyright ©2010 by Kelly Money". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairy Tale Murders (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There were really two problems with your article. The copyright issue was primary, because text from copyrighted sources

not yet notable enough for an article. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I am trying to figure my way through this. I was recommended to do this: Can I do it simple in a different format without adding where to buy the book etc.?

copy/paste of text from user's page

Something Like this: Fairy Tale Murders is a book written by Kelly Money, Published by Fideli Publishing and copyrighted in 2010 by the US Copyright office. Plot: Women are disappearing in Topeka and with each disappearance there comes another “special delivery” from a man who calls himself the Fairy Tale Murderer. Detective Kate Kingsley searches for her missing best friend, Kristen, while hot on the trail of an emerging serial killer. Is Kristen one of the killers “princesses” or is she simply the bait to lure Kate to her own Fairy Tale ending? Country haven is a mortuary in the small town of Topeka which has been handed down from one generation to another. It is in a historic area and has many original fixtures, including an incinerator in the basement. Stan is a young man who has lived a very sheltered life and has been groomed to take over the family business. By accident he witnesses his father’s death and a series of events follow which guides Stan to his true awakening. His first victim is his first mistake! His first victim, who he calls Sleeping Beauty, is long time best friends with Detective Kate Kingsley. As Kate puts the pieces together she has no idea how close she is to finding the killer, all the clues are there but she races against time and emotion to make sense of them. Stan keeps coming into the investigation but by the time Kate figures out all the clues will it be too late? So starts the cat and mouse game between Kate and Stan. Can Kate put the pieces of the puzzle together fast enough to stop the beast within Stan? You can find this book available on all eBook sites.

(I would like to Link my name to another page created by me KellyMoney35 which gives information about me the author, I also wish I would have used Kelly_Money instead so that the 35 wasn't at the end, can I change that username?) Also, I will go in and fix the KellyMoney35 page because I am sure that was deleted as well. :) I apologize for any inconvenience but I just want to get in wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairy Tale Murders (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

1. So you are both User:KellyMoney35 and User:Fairy Tale Murders? That's a problem because both of those are user accounts, and one person is only supposed to have one account.

2. Even if you had created an article instead of a second user account, your book is not yet notable enough for a Wikpedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting goods and services. Please visit

this link

for more information on what Wikipedia is.

3. If you want to change your user name: At this point both user names have so little history that you could easily walk away from them. My suggest would be to log out of both names and never use them again. Then create a new user account with the name you'd like to use, then visit the Help area.

--| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 14:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiya Milty, not sure I really understand about Wiki yet just learning, is it my username that is the problem? If I change it to my own name is it acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munky Boots (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 02:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 03:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You have removed a tag you claim was placed by me in 2008 on Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. I did not place that tag. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that any and all of us can read the edit history of that article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You reverted an edit which you said in your edit comment might be a BLP violation. If you spend a lot of time on recent changes, could you please make it a practice to put a warning on the talk page of the offending editor that you are reverting, so that he learns what policies he may be violating? That helps the editor, and also ratchets up the ability to justify blocking of the editor if it becomes necessary for a pattern of inappropriate edits, as it did in the case of that editor. Thanks! Edison (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am putting the changes back that you undid. I read the Ocala Post and if the [Star Banner] and [Ocala Website, alternative newspaper for Ocala] can be listed so can Ocala Post which is a much better online paper than the Star banner who now charges to be read online. I am not affiliated with Ocala Post so you calling it promotion is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criminaljustice2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The first time, you intentionally removed the links to the other sites when you added yours. That's obviously promotional. I have removed links to your little blog again because they it not appropriate for the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, (1) I have taken screen shots of our conversation to send them to Ocala Post. (2) I removed the "alternative Newspaper" because it is no longer being kept up or monitored. (3) yes I removed the Banner out of spite because frankly they are horrible and they now charge after you read three articles,our community is outraged. Maybe that was wrong and I apologize. (4) Ocala Post does not belong to me so do not get that twisted. I do not want it to appear as if I have claimed to Own Ocala Post and get sued by them. Ocala Post has sued two other companies locally for slander so I do not want to give that impression. I will request that Ocala Post add themselves if you are going to continue to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criminaljustice2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If they add themselves, the links will still likely get removed. There is nothing notable about a blog that has to hide behind private domain registration to help them remain anonymous. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed an entry under clarinet players. Woody Herman was in the list twice (which would be easily avoided if the players were alphabetized, BTW, but I was in a hurry). After I made the change, I realized I hadn't posted an explanation for the deletion and tried to amend the History of the page. However, I couldn't figure out to so without reverting the change and making it all over again, so I just left it as is.

I have again edited the page and removed the duplicate entry. If you can't take the time to review the change before you revert it, you shouldn't be working for Wikipedia. IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symmerhill (talk • contribs) 19:04, August 27 2013‎

I see the confusion now. It turns out the clarinetist section is alphabetized, and you were removing the version that was in the proper place. That all I was seeing. I've moved the other listing into its proper place. By the way, I "work for Wikipedia" in exactly the same way you do. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill K. McNulty. The author of the article seems to have a selective understanding of things!

I notice you've opened/participated in a lot of SPI's. I wonder whether you have a view on this edit early on in the AfD by an IP that had no previous edits but seemed to have a reasonable knowledge of Wikipedia policy/guidelines. They subsequently introduced themselves as new user Tammytoons, who claims to have been invited to take part in the AfD "at the request of a friend" to fight the "anti-feminist bias". Considering Albeit's controlling behaviour I'm suspicious of this activity, particularly because Tammytoons (1) signs their name in a similar way to Albeit and (2) hasn't participated in any of the many other AfD's on women subjects apart from Jill K. McNulty. I'm curious to know if you think this is sockpuppeting or maybe off-wiki canvassing? Sionk (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albiet. If you have anything to add you are welcome to do so in the section for comments from other users. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I also appreciate your comments. I certainly have been very zealous in my defense of this article on strong principal of promoting women in society, maybe to much so, personal issues with

) 19:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

I don't know what your issue with Sionk is and I don't really care, but I can say with all certainty that Sionk hasn't even touched

Dispute resolution noticeboard and discussing things there. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry the article with which Sionk tampered was not McKinley (surname). It was MacKinley. Thanks for your suggestion about Dispute resolution. Albiet (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Here are two more that you may wish to put up for deletion at Commons:

• File:Jabirknight.jpg
• File:Jabirali.jpg

I'm just about done blocking all his accounts and deleting all the hoaxes and the ones he submitted to AfC. Phew! Thanks for your help :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Uncle Milty. At no point did I attempt to write an article incorrectly. I was informed that this was the place to let potential clients know about my business. Is there a manner in which I can do this over, and if so, would you be willing to assist?

Respectfully yours,

Nephew Ernest — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEAMEMI Consulting (talk • contribs) 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were misinformed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote a business. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand I was misinformed, however, may I have a do over? I will check the help desk, and do more research before making an error like this again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEAMEMI Consulting (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you tag this userpage for speedy deletion? I declined the request for now, but please let me know if you think I missed something. Singularity42 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a multi-step spam technique. The "blog" the external link on his page links to is another blog with another embedded spam link. This particular one takes four steps (one of which was malformed) but eventually takes a person to shoesmart_org/jessica-simpson-shoes/ (url obfuscated intentionally). --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just didn't think it was blatant spam. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the link, with a message on his talk page about why (and a link to

WP:UP). Singularity42 (talk

) 23:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I recognized the spammer, deleted the page, and blocked the account as the spambot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A comment on your nomination at

) 11:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you relisted this discussion. Three users (including myself) have voted to keep the article, and no other user except the nominator has been arguing/voting for deletion. Also, several sources establishing the article's notability have been unearthed in the discussion. Given this, as well as the fact that the AFD has been up for two weeks, I'd like to politely ask you to consider undoing your relisting of this AFD and (eventually) leave it for an admin to decide. Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 12:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I relisted it because

• It's the discussion that matters, not the number of "votes".
• One of the users posting a keep "vote" has serious COI issues with this subject.
• There has been a large amount of discussion, with the last comment added as late as yesterday.

There's no need to undo a relisting. Another uninvolved user who believes a consensus has been reached can still close the discussion. However, as I saw that discussion was still ongoing, I felt that relisting was the proper action. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

While you are right that one of the users in the discussion does have a conflict of interest, more sources emerged two days ago. My opinion is that another relisting was unnecessary, because there's nothing suggesting that the article will be deleted now. My belief is that AFD's are usually closed in cases such as this. I've seen AFD's with only three votes being closed. But I may be wrong! Cheers, Heymid (contribs) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ill educated interference with the talk pages of others & rude warnings

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to undo legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Reaper Eternal, you may be blocked from editing. Do not take it upon YOURSELF to "maintain" OTHER user's talk pages. The page clearly states "Due to large time commitments in the recent past, I was unable to read and respond to a fair number of non-urgent messages. If your questions still need answering, feel free to dig them out of the archives (see the box below) and place them back on my talk page. My apologies.. | I mean - [[3]] which I would lilke you to revert. I am also unhappy with your offensive and illiterate posting to MY talk page [[4]], and the combination makes me unhappy. Perhaps you would like to discuss your problems, or revert your edits?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 19:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I made no illiterate posts to your talk page, and I don't care if you've chosen to be offended. No apologies will be forthcoming nor will I be reverting the aforementioned edits. I am familiar with your escapades around WP and I am not interested in being a part of it. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If the image is used in the article, why can't it be used on my user page? --

) 16:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a copyrighted image, it can only be use within

very narrow circumstances. It cannot be used on user pages under any circumstance. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 17:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --

talk

) 21:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I use

talk

) 21:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that one is a copyrighted image also. If you scroll down on the image's page, you can see the licensing for that image. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't see that.

Thanks again. --

talk

) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ive made changes can you confirm this is ok? Or advise on what you would like changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksheepseeds (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank you. For some, including my most humble self, Wikipedia can be too much of an addictive place for registered editing. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Uncle Mitty. I've just seen that you've re-prodded an article after another editor had contested the prod. Are you simply helping the IP with a technical issue over templates or do you reckon the article needs to be deleted and/or requires discussion? Reason I ask is 'cos I'm preparing an AN/I concerning that IP's recent edits and would like a second opinion on that particular edit. Cheers. --Technopat (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't re-prod it. I simply completed the AFD listing because IPs cannot. I didn't see anything off about the listing at the time, but I'll admit I didn't take the time to research it deeply. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Yor're right, of course. I used the term "re-prod" 'cos the other editor had contested the original prod. Cheers. --Technopat (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1) When you originally removed my words critically acclaimed from the Bernard McNulty article, even though the verifying O'Donogue source cited contrarily states that McNulty's work was "praised" by critics, CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED WAS NOT THEN IN QUOTES and was a reasonable paraphrase.

2) The only GOOD FAITH mistake I made in restoring the material that you originally improperly removed to begin was in relying on my months old memory of the source and, erroneously, putting critically acclaimed, which was not originally so, in quotes when I restored it, instead, of the actual source language "praised by some critics". The meanings are near identical. THIS DOES NOT BRING MY INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY INTO QUESTION. Don't attempt to turn this around on me, because of my inconsequential slip IN REPAIRING YOUR DAMAGE TO THE ARTICLE, WHEN BASED ON THE PAGE 338 STATEMENT IN THE VERIFYING O'DONOGUE SOURCE THAT THE THE PATRIOT CHIEF HAD BEEN "PRAISED BY SOME CRITICS", YOU HAD NO BUSINESS REMOVING MY ORIGINAL UNQUOTED DESCRIPTION OF THAT WORK AS CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED to begin. DON'T TRY TO NOW TURN YOUR ORIGINAL ERROR IN EDITING THIS ARTICLE, WITHOUT, FIRST, EVEN, BOTHERING TO READ ITS VERIFYING SOURCES, AROUND ON ME NOW.

3) Since you do not appear to have a University Research Library available to you or are not concerned enough about your edit work before commencing it to bother to bother to travel to one to research an article's verifying sources, you can also, of course, locate the complete December 29, 1892 BOSTON EVENING TRANSCRIPT at GOOGLES NEWSPAPER ARCHIVES. WHO APPOINTED YOU IMPERITOR OF OTHER EDITORS WORK AND THEIR CHARACTERS ANYWAY. IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE MATERIAL THAT I HAVE PLACED IN AN ARTICLE WITH VERIFYING SOURCES, THEN, DO YOUR WORK FIRST, AND, VERIFY THAT THE SOURCES DO NOT SUPPORT MY STATEMENTS. Clearly, the verifying O'Donogue source did support my original unquoted statement that Patriot Chief was critically acclaimed, and the Evening Transcript supports my statement that McNulty was widely known.

Albiet (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Albiet

1) Paraphrased fluff is not allowed. Quoted and referenced fluff is (within limits). I merely did the work for you. You're welcome.

2) You're the one complaining that people don't check the references. In this case, you didn't. I did the work for you. You're welcome.

3) If you wanted people to check references first, you might try putting actual links to internet-available sources when you know they are available. I'm not doing your work for you this time.

3a) At no point does the O'Donogue source make any claim that McNulty was "critically acclaimed". Not even once. And, as has been pointed out to you over an over again: People who are not widely known do not have WP articles. Saying that the subject of a WP article is "widely known" is redundant and unneeded in a encyclopedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

1a) Please reference the Wikipedia Guideline that states that source materials should not be summarized or paraphrased, if they are not falsely attributed in such form as the actual words of the verifying source. If this is the case, each Wikipedia article is likely going to accumulate hundreds and hundreds of pages of direct quotes. Your being ridiculous here.

1) As has been repeatedly pointed out to you being "notable" or worthy of note and being "known" are 2 entirely different things. That Nulty was known suggests an influence on actions of contemporaries not just historic or encyclopaedic note.

2) As has been also repeatedly pointed out to you, if you had not, first, edited an article without, first, reviewing the verifying sources already provided therein, my minor error in restoring those improperly removed materials would not have occurred.

3) Please provide Lexicon support for your position that critical acclaim and critical praise substatially differ.

4) Published print sources are eminently preferable to often unvetted internet sources nor are all text materials yet digitized.

Learn to use a library. I have no interest in doing your research work. If you want to edit articles, then, do your own research, first, so you can perform competently.

5) Your combative commentaries in both edit and User talk are unecessary and unwanted. | Albiet (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please take a look at this AfD, which you recently relisted. Another editor is complaining that since you are not an administrator, you did not have the right to do this. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have explained myself there. If I have indeed screwed up, some admin will fix it and let me know. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think of it - (after I finished the other comment) - if I do find I have put an AfD on a page with a CSD should I leave them both there or what action should I take (less likely to happen twice but if I don't ask it will!)-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You can state that you are withdrawing the AFD in the AFD and someone will close it, or you can even perform a

non-admin closure of the AFD yourself. There are a number of steps to take in a proper AFD closure, but if I can do it anyone can. --| Uncle Milty | talk

| 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way I can change my user name or do I have to create a new account?

I am trying to format my listing similar to another listing on your site...The Gardens Mall.

PGA Commons

Sorry I forgot to sign my last message PGA Commons (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Rhea Slinger

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now three months, no talk page editing. There are a few accounts like this which follow a similar pattern and may well be paid editing. Whatever the background, the advertising is so blatant that I'm not going to cut any slack on re-offending Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)