User talk:Uncle Milty

Hello! On Wikipedia, I spend most of my time patrolling recent changes. If, while doing so, you believe I have made a mistake, please note:

I 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. Please don't leave me a template message, if I've made a bad edit, chances are it was a mistake. And, if I have reverted your edit, whether vandalism or a mistake, please don't abuse me with vandalism here. It will be quickly reverted.
I am not here everyday. If you leave me a message and I don't respond immediately, don't panic! I will get back to you the next time I am online and see your message.

Welcome!

Hello, Uncle Milty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Slade (The Joker) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BGW-OldLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BGW-OldLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd delete it myself if I could. I replaced it with Image:BGW-OldLogo.jpg Uncle Milty (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the United States

I had removed some poorly sourced claims in this article, which a new anon IP has been reverting back in. Now you have reverted the same material back. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with removing poorly sourced material. Why are you being contentious about it? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside your uncivil claims about my "pattern", let's review together this section:

In the United States, there have been crimes committed against whites on the basis of their ethnicity. These crimes are often localized and occur in areas where whites are a racial minority. They do not receive the same media attention as other racially motivated crimes.^[1]

This is sourced to a "Loompanics" website. Is this a reliable source to you?

The Nation of Islam, a religious and social/political organization with the self-proclaimed goal of improving the condition of the Black people in America, has been described as espousing antiwhite and antisemitic views.^[2] and anti-white.^[3]

this is sourced to weak refs that do not demonstrate "Racism against white Americans", which is the name of this section.

Some Black nationalists propagate pseudohistory to emphasize alleged Black superiority over whites.^[4]

There is no indication has this demonstrates "Racism against white Americans".

Please stop reverting poorly sourced contentious material. thank you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you think "Loompanics" is a reliable source for an article on racism, then we are obviously on different wavelengths. I'll remove the poorly sourced information with an explanation on the talk page. Cheers. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for catching my typo at Transportation and Communications in Mexico. It was a brain hiccup. :) The Transhumanist 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Repair

Not a problem, the same IP vandalized my page as well and I noticed he had edited another user page so I took a peek and fixed it :) ^SyBer_WoLff 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Buchanan

As an historian and a supporter of tolerance and civil liberties for all, I deny that acknowledging the historical fact that we have had a gay president is "unconstructive". Please leave historical corrections to the historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.170.95 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking

Recently on an IP address that vandalized Nicole Richie, you put a message on the talk page that looked like this:

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

What template is that; I need to know. Thanks, Astrale01^talk_contribs 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for helping take care of the vandalism on the Karaoke Revolution songlist page from earlier this month! 70.236.10.83 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparral Links - Midland College Page

Uncle Milty,

To which links are you referring?

Mcwebeditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwebeditor (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my user page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goth - Fashion

Milty: I would like to dispute your ubndoing my revision to the Goth fashion section. Describing goth fashion as morbid and dark is just as much personal opionion as describing it as ridiculous.

I therefore argue that if you are going to undo my edit you should revise the whole description of goth fashion to remove any personal opinion whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.147.174 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean here: Goth subculture? You could have chosen to rewrite the description properly yourself. Why not try that? --Uncle Milty (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milty - I don't disagree with the descriptions of dark and morbid for goth fashion but I also agree that Goth fashion is ridiculous. I am more than happy to change the description to this but want your assurance that you will not revert it - otherwise there isn't much point is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.147.174 (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as your edits meet Wikipedia's guidelines, especially wp:npov, then you can be confident that no editor is likely to revert your edits. --Uncle Milty (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goth - Fashion

Milty - I would like to argue against your reverting my edit regarding goth fashion. The current statement that goth fashion is stereotyped as dark and morbid is just as much personal opinion as stating that it is stereotyped as ridiculous, dark and morbid.

I would therefore like to request that you revert back to my edit or otherwise revise the entire section to remove any personal opinion whatsoever. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.147.174 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midland College

Uncle Milty, thank you for your work on the Midland College page ... it DOES look cleaner following the 'According To-ectomies' you performed. I shall use that for my guideline in future changes/updates to that page. Mcwebeditor (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It gave me something to nitpick at while eating lunch, plus I got some good practice at forming references. --Uncle Milty (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

No problem Tiger Trek (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morrell

Thanks for catching the ref issues in the article. I was just about to fix them myself. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Uncle Milty (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You have accused me of vandalism here [1]. 1) the message of SP was not placed by an admin: this is the real vandalism 2) there are no evidences to support the claim. Best regards--Barba Nane (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add appropriate template warnings. --Uncle Milty (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no evidences. I live in Europe and Ragusino in South America. No chek user was asked. Anyway I was in good faith, so do not accuse me of vandalism. --Barba Nane (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Article "Melting Pot" you removed a picture...

What is the reason you do not want this picture beside this text in the melting pot article that you removed? Dr CareBear (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move your threat of blocking that you placed on my talk page here. I have been a editor of Wikipedia for over a year.

January 2009 Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Melting pot. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Why lie when anyone can visit my talk page? Uncle Milty (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to look at the message I left on your talk page which is above. Lie about what? I do not know what you are talking about. Why are you accusing me of lying? Lying about what? The picture I added to the melting pot article was appropriate so you are the one who is lying about something. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have falsely accused me of vandalizing an article in the history of melting pot. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. --Uncle Milty (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary the picture supports the text in everyway. The whole article of melting pot is about blending of white races and the prohibition of asians aand white people mixing as well as others. The picture provides and example for people to see what the fuss was all about. Using unsupported bellowing like that you could claim any picture was unencyclopedic. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP adding that picture and quote from the article to my talk page. --Uncle Milty (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over your talk page I understand you now. You defended poorly sourced material making claims about racism toward whites perpetrated by non-white races in the article called Racism in the United States. It would appear that your motivation to remove the picture from the melting pot article is hatred of other races other then white and that the picture simply offends you because it is a picture of a multiracial child. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you would be wrong about that also. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, thanks for the IP address. It's interesting to see the edits your alter-ego does. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! Alterego? That is just me forgeting to log on. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is tough to remember when you are logged in. Just ask FILJOY. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is my wife who originally wanted to put the picture on Wikipedia of our child. She is a Filipina. She has given up doing this herself however and has returned to www.youtube.com with her usual posting of comments there on videos. Dr CareBear (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I said above. After looking over your talk page I understand you now. You defended poorly sourced material making claims about racism toward whites perpetrated by non-white races in the article called Racism in the United States. It would appear that your motivation to remove the picture from the melting pot article is hatred of other races other then white and that the picture simply offends you because it is a picture of a multiracial child. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you would be wrong about that also. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, thanks for the IP address. It's interesting to see the edits your alter-ego does. --Uncle Milty (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing Wikipedia:Twinkle as you do can get you blocked.

You should read Wikipedia:Twinkle because it states that abuse of it can get you blocked. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I'm not doing that. --Uncle Milty (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have falsly accused me of sockpuppetry.....

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr CareBear (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Uncle Milty (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. My wife shares this same computer and created her own account called FILJOY which she used only once. She spends most of her time on www.youtube.com viewing videos from the Philippines as she is a Filipina and posting comments there. Uncle Milty seems to be racially motivated in his false charges of vandalism he has made against me. Because I forgot to log on he found my wife's account she created. I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and I know Sockpuppetry is a violation and I reframe from it. The account in question called FILJOY was my wife. P.S. You can call me and my wife at 937-938-6686 USA where we are currently. Dr CareBear (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Please see my reply to Uncle Milty (talk).[reply]

"Racially motivated" says the guy who goes on and on and on about the race of his wife. Seems to me that race is your issue, not mine. --Uncle Milty (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is right here on your talk page of how you were in dispute with someone you did not even reply to about how you supported poorly sourced material in the article "Racism in the United States" regarding racism of non-whites against whites. And then you remove a picture from melting pot that supports the paragraph it is next to and it appears you did it because "race mixing" offends you. Dr CareBear (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any assumption you like, I guess. Once again you would be wrong, though. BTW, Melting pot doesn't need photographic support. --Uncle Milty (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I said earier above.... After looking over your talk page I understand you now. You defended poorly sourced material making claims about racism toward whites perpetrated by non-white races in the article called Racism in the United States. It would appear that your motivation to remove the picture from the melting pot article is hatred of other races other then white and that the picture simply offends you because it is a picture of a multiracial child. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. --Uncle Milty (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn

Hello Uncle Milty. I just wanted to drop you a note saying thank you for helping in protecting this page and for trying to educate the IP into becoming a useful editor at Wikipedia. As you are aware they have devolved into vandalism. So I also wanted to let you know that I have filed a request for protection here [2]. If accepted we should get some peace for a time. Otherwise I know that you will keep up the good work of protection. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. --Uncle Milty (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon?

to late. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just tooooo fast for me. ^_^ --Uncle Milty (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Koren

Hi Uncle Mitty,

No hard feelings. I value the hard and I imagine somtimes thankless work of WP editors. I have already posted these comments by the Gideon Koren page. In the light of my remarks I hope you will accept my reversion was not vandalism. Given that unidentified people seem bent on amending my copy, is it possible to lock the page?

Just posted:

The Mclean's article cited is partial. It is largely a review of and dependent on the views in the book The Drug Trial by Miriam Schuchman. The article author does not use any comments from Olivieri or her supporters. The British Medical Journal panned The Drug Trial, saying, "It is disappointing that Shuchman's book hardly touches on these issues. Instead, it retells the story from a worm's eye view, dwelling on the personalities of the people involved, what they said about each other, who was sleeping with whom, and the tricks they got up to blacken each other's reputations." (Chrsitopher Martyn BMJ.2005; 331: 115) Professor Arthur Schafer, Director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba has written about Shuchman's book. (Bioethics , Vol. 21 (2) 2007, pp 111-115). He concluded, "I was repeatedly struck by how often Shuchman's account of events is contradicted by the findings of a series of independent inquiries - all public documents, all easily obtainable. Almost all of the anti-Olivieri "revelations" presented in Shuchman's book are warmed-over versions of allegations already disproven by one or more of these impartial inquiries, and the others are undocumented hearsay."

David Healey in the Monash Ethics Review also cast doubts on The Drug Trial. (Vol. 24, No 4, 2005 – available at http://www.healyprozac.com/AcademicStalking/Post%201%20-%20The%20Drug%20Trial.pdf ) “Having investigated the Olivieri case, long before this book came out, I can say that there are lots of similar background events in this case that just do not feature in The Drug Trial. I can also say that again and again, the specific details outlined in this book seem to me simply wrong.”

The Wiki entry in question is about Gideon Koren. Biographical entries do not exist for PR purposes. I mentioned Olivieri because she was a recipient of the hate mail sent by Koren and CAUT found other behaviour by Koren that involved Olivieri that fell well short of the mark. It is not reasonable or fair to relay innuendoes about Olivieri in Wikipedia without citing credible sources.

My name is here for all to see. I have no connections with either Koren or Olivieri. I invite others, especially those who edit my copy, to make known their names and any connections with Koren or institutions and companies that he is associated with. Paul Burns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendwell (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Springatlast's version to the talk space because I thought it was an improvement of your version but that it still required more sources in order to achieve an appropriate biography of a living person, which must take extra care not to be libelous. I hope you will not vandalize by reverting to your own version repeatedly and not allowing any edits. I do find positive reviews of the book you mention, as well. Let's work on a balanced version. All sources have their bias, including sources like the teachers' union you used. I respect Wikipedia's protection of the biographies of living persons and hope you will, too. Ciche (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

A bit overprotective aren't you? If you think the page shouldn't be tagged maybe find some sources. It's a pile of bullshit as it stands. I'm undoing YOUR vandalism. --86.45.204.34 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is properly cited, the refs weren't built correctly. --Uncle Milty (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One site? Excuse me but this would not be tolerated ANYWHERE else. If you have the power to block me for MY actions and do so you should be banned for life. No preferential treatement. We're not a fansite. We're not for fancruft. We are for fact. Encyclopedic fact. I wonder how many non-American editors would be on your side? --86.45.204.34 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We"?? You're just some anonymous user. Feel free to register and/or log in and take responsibility for your edits. As it is right now, nothing you have done to the article has been constructive. Just adding an unnecessarily long list of template tags doesn't help the article. --Uncle Milty (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You appear to have violated 3RR. And I may be an IP address but I clearly have more etiquette than you. --86.45.204.34 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Now.

This is totally unacceptable; don't even try to defend it. – iridescent 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I don't need to defend it anyway. The diffs speak for themselves. I'll just let this person continue to vandalize the articles. Sorry if I've bothered anyone. --Uncle Milty (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are not acts of vandalism if applied appropriately as they are in my case. Consider this a test. Would you respond differently if I were a user with 40,000 + edits applying tags in this way to "your" page? You can be constructive by working on those articles so that those tags can be justifiably removed instead of preventing the page from improvement. You have to understand that from an outsider's pint of view this list of pets looks dodgy at best. --86.45.204.34 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html
^ H-ANTISEMITISM OCCASIONAL PAPERS, NO. 1M
^ "Active U.S. Hate Groups in 2006". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2007-09-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
^ Wilson Jeremiah Moses (1998). Afrotopia: The Roots of African American Popular History. Cambridge University Press. pp. pp. 46. ISBN 052147941X. OCLC 37878711. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)

[1] ttp://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html

[NOI1-2] H-ANTISEMITISM OCCASIONAL PAPERS, NO. 1M

[NOI2-3] "Active U.S. Hate Groups in 2006". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2007-09-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[4] Wilson Jeremiah Moses (1998). Afrotopia: The Roots of African American Popular History. Cambridge University Press. pp. pp. 46. ISBN 052147941X. OCLC 37878711. Retrieved 2008-02-10. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]