User talk:MiltonPB

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Ivy League Haircut, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Various matters
Hello there. I don't understand this code you add to the bottom of paragraphs: I have remove it where I've encountered it. It seems to make bit white spaces and do nothing else. Please let me know if it has a purpose.

Also, the references you added at Regular haircut and other articles seem to go nowhere. Please help. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the code is to keep the illustrative photos aligned with the accompanying text. Most of the references lead to the bibliography;I believe that is one of the ways to do references in Wikipedia. Thanks, MiltonPB (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted at talk for other views. Please see: Talk:Regular haircut. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons needs you
Hello, my friend. Please check out this category. There are many hairstyles that need more refined categories. I think you know hairstyles well so I thought I'd ask you. Best wishes and many thanks for any help you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and help in the not too distant future. When the categories are more refined, it doesn't place photos in the refined  categories; this is the real task and it is enormous. There are photos of most of the styles in  Wikimedia but there is no way of readily finding them since most people when adding a photo file to Wikimedia for something other than a hairstyle article do not think to include the hairstyle displayed in the photo as a category. Thanks! MiltonPB (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. Maybe there are celebrities who have hairstyles we know. That way we could go to their category and pick good examples to categorize. Huge project, you're right. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Regular haircut. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor JesseRafe took his "ownership" allegations to the Administrator's Notice Board on July 25 and August 1 and was advised  each time to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Instead, he waits approximately 50 days and without discussing it on the article's talk page  again splits the lead paragraph in two; not exactly the type of behavior expected of a Wikipedia Administrator. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut_2

MiltonPB (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what does that have to do with my observations? I've personally made changes, based on a consensus reached on the talk page with, , and myself which mysteriously were undone by you a few times.  I would prefer to not see this behavior continue because I really hate elevating things to those stupid toxic noticeboards, but I will if you insist on continuing this unacceptable behavior.  Please don't make this happen.  Some things you may benefit from reading on the various ways that Wikipedians reach consensus in content disputes without having to go to WP:DRN or WP:RFC/USER or such nonsense.  Thanks and happy wiki-ing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In early July, you added the taper photos horizontally above the text to alleviate the white space issue that had initially been pointed out by AnnaFrodesiak, and which all of us agreed was a problem. You only added those photos horizontally once. A couple of weeks later when I had the time, I rewrote and significantly expanded the tapers section and realigned the taper photos with their accompanying text, since there was no longer a white space issue in that area of the article. The photos were still as you  had placed them horizontally on July 2, they had not been "mysteriously were undone by you a few times" as stated in your entry above. In early August I again rewrote and expanded the tapers section adding a paragraph above the "Short" taper section under the heading "Tapers" that had previously been devoid of content. On the same day, AnnaFrodesiak made up a table containing the cutting lengths of the various blades and guards, which I had initially added in text form when I wrote the article. She also enlarged each of the taper photos and that is how the Tapers sections still appear. I suggest that you are advising the wrong party with regard to reaching consensus. I have posted on the article's Talk Page in detail why the lead section should not be split. JesseRafe who took this to the Administrators Notice Board twice and was advised to discuss it on the article's Talk Page will not do so. He has once again, twice in the past few hours, disjoined the lead section, creating a massive white space issue, while this time alleging that he cannot discuss the issue on the the Talk Page since it is unreadable. The administrators who advised him to discuss this issue on the article's Talk Page did not note that the Talk Page was unreadable; if they had they would not have so advised.

I also suggest that there may be somewhat of a misunderstanding as to what constitutes "ownership," specifically:

"Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Overview

And...

"Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, its best to assume good faith on their part.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.

Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship

Thanks!

MiltonPB (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, you really need to work on your tl;dr comments on talk pages, they are very difficult to read.
 * Second, There has been a lot of back and forth with you and various other editors since I was first made aware of the issue back in July.
 * by was.
 * made by consensual agreement of, , and was.
 * by me adding a table that fixed the problem and was agreed upon was undone by you in which also expanded the sections a little.
 * by was.
 * by was.
 * by and I were.
 * and.
 * ,, and made some improvements to the article, which were.
 * All of that was just between July 1st and August 1st... It has continued since then. That, good sir, is indicative of WP:OWN, and I beg you to desist in that behavior. Technical 13 (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with you, Technical 13. The problem is the huge blocks of text (both in the Talk page and the article mainspace) as much as it is the ownership of the article. This page needs significant work. I've never seen anything as over-referenced as this, especially since it's the same page number or consecutive pages cited over and over again. Just spacing out the article was my original intention so that I could read it and be sure I was understanding everything so I could pare it down to a more manageable level of content proved to be its own battle.
 * There is a lot of valuable information here, MiltonPB, don't misunderstand me or think I'm belittling your efforts, but I was told a long time ago that "Writing to make things longer (like a HS assignment) is easy, it's writing to make things shorter that's the challenge". Let's space things out, use sections, work on removing redundancies, combine some sentences with relative clauses, cut down on the amount of citations (maybe to chapters of those handful of books, not dozens and scores of specific pages?), and also finally reduce the number of pictures, while also adding captions to each one (subject and length of hair, so it's not just a guess what they're trying to say. JesseRafe (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia wants articles to be well referenced and that in line citations should be to pages not to chapters. The purpose of the photos is to illustrate the various styles of tapers. In such an article, photos are indispensable; limiting photos makes little sense. The subject of the photo is not important since the photo is to illustrate a style of taper. There is no guesswork. The photos are of regular haircuts with different styles of tapers. If a person wants to learn the name of the subject of the photo for whatever reason,  that information is available on Wikimedia.  The photos that are not labeled  appear adjacent to the text describing the style of taper and have the  photo named for the style of taper,  which is visible  when the photo is expanded. This is actually  one of  the best researched and referenced Wikipedia male hairstyle articles. In contrast,  male hairstyle articles that need work include Mullet, High and tight, Quiff, Pompadour, Curtained hair, Ducktail,  Blowout, Temple Fade (hairstyle), Bowl cut, Caesar cut, Shape-Up.  Thanks!  MiltonPB (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what those edits actually were about....

A.
 * by was.

AnnaFrodesiak took the html code out of the article which caused the photos to be badly misaligned, and also left a message on my Talk Page asking about the html code which she did not recognize and whether it had a purpose. I replied that it indeed did have a purpose to keep the photos and text aligned and added the code back.

B.
 * made by consensual agreement of, , and was.


 * There was never any consensus between Gorilla Warfare, Anna and Prabash, how could there be; Gorilla Warfare and Prabash never posted on the article's Talk Page.

And C.
 * by me adding a table that fixed the problem and was agreed upon was undone by you in which also expanded the sections a little.


 * Prabash's 1st edit consisted of changing the pix in the html code which she then reverted herself to my last edit.


 * GorillaWarfare then split the Reference List into three columns which was never reverted and the Reference List still consists of three columns.


 * AnnaFrodesiak then enlarged the taper photos to 150pix which created an ever greater white space issue.


 * Prabsh then alternated the photos left and right.


 * Prabash then reverted the edit commenting, more harm than good.


 * Anna then removed the html clear codes which made a real mess.


 * Prabash then added the clear code back which caused a huge white space issue with the larger photos.


 * AnnaFrodesiak then placed the tapers section in a Table.


 * I then reverted the Table back to a Text Format because the Table format broke all the internal and external links to the tapers sections. This was discussed on the Talk Page and you stated that you were against a Table Format since is problematic with mobile devices. You then placed the taper photos horizontally above the text where it remained until the tapers section was expanded, and the photos were added back to the accompanying text since there no longer was a white space issue.

D,E,F,G.
 * by was.
 * by was.
 * by and I were.
 * and.


 * JeeseRafe's edits have consisted of separating the lead section for the following different reasons given in the Revision History summary.

1)July 21, "opening up lede into new section so TOC comes up earlier"


 * This was addressed by moving the table of contents.

2) July 23, "big white space? Problem is probably your display settings. Moved image, this is proper, lede that's 2/3 the length of the article is improper"

3)July 24, "sections cleanup"

4)July 24, "fixed needless toc template"


 * Note: the toc template was added to address JesseRafe's original stated concern, "so TOC comes up earlier."


 * Topping section added and lead rejoined. The reasons were discussed in detail on the article's Talk page.

5)July 24, "That is *not* how a lede is used, it should be in its own section, it's beyond a mere introduction to the topic, see the MOS"

After this edit JesseRafe took this to the Administrator's Notice Board and was told to discuss it on the article's talk page.
 * At revert #5 JesseRafe also removed the Topping section.


 * Lead was rejoined and Topping section was added back.


 * Malerooster's edit involved removing the linked articles at See Also. They were added back with a detailed explanation.

6)July 31, JesseRafe disjoins lead section again without Talk Page discussion with this explanation: "(Elements of a haircut -- again, really?)"


 * August 1: Lead section was rejoined.

7) August 1, JesseRafe again disjoins lead section without talk page discussion and states he is seeking protection. Asserts that I have ownership. Adds his only comment on  the article talk page, wherein he states  he was not aware that there was a Talk Page discussion regardless that he had been advised that there was a discussion on the Talk Page and he should discuss it there when he took this to the Administrators Notice Board on July 25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut

"(sections for ease of readability, see Talk page and requesting protection, MiltonPB's "ownership" and aversion to discourse unsettling)"
 * His explantion in the summary:
 * His explanation at the Talk Page can be read there along with my reply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut_2
 * He then again takes this to the Administrators Notice Board where he is advised that it is a content dispute and he should discuss it on the article's Talk Page.


 * August 3: Lead and Tapers sections edited. Very detailed explanation of the anatomy of the lead section and the structure of the article on the article's Talk Page.


 * August 3: AnnaFrodesiak placed the Blades and Guards information in a table as it still is today. This was not reverted by me as indicated in Technical 13's post above.


 * Since August 3 nothing has "continued" as intimated by Technical 13. There was a misguided unattributed edit on September 1 that was reverted by AnnaFrodesiak and then when her revert was reverted, it was reverted again by me.


 * All that has happened besides that is a few more illustrative photos were added.

8) September 4 after 50 days and without talk page discussion as advised at the Administrators Notice Board, JesseRafe disjoins the lead section giving this explanation in the summary: "sections for ease of readability"


 * I rejoined the lead section.

9)September 24, JesseRafe again disjoins the lead section without discussing it on the Talk Page as advised at the Administrator's Notice Board with this explanation given in the summary: "that talk section is unreadable. Too many huge blocks of text and unclear what is copy-and-paste examples or MoS and what is your opinion, breaking this up to make it approachable to the reader, that's who matters"

I beg to differ; this is not ownership at all.

MiltonPB (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in crew cut, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Per too many photos. '' serioushat 11:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello serioushat/Twinsday, The Manual of Style with regard to images was read numerous times and followed. The images are placed more or less evenly within the article; since the article is on a haircut and all the images depict said haircut, they are relevant wherever they are placed in the article. The images most relevant to the history section were placed in or adjacent to it. There are no images stacked within the lead.  The lead image is not beyond 300px wide. The other images are not beyond the size limits, 500px tall, 400px wide, so that they can be displayed on the smallest displays in common use.  The images significantly and directly relate to the article's topic as they all display crew cuts. The images attempt to show a variety of crew cuts on a variety of guys with different face shapes, facial features and frontal hairlines, and wearing athletic attire, casual clothes, suit and tie. All images have a caption. To try and describe each crew cut and each subject in each caption would lead to unnecessarily long captions when the photo is meant to convey visual information, that not all crew cuts are not identical, which the reader is already aware of from reading the text of the article.  It is true that not all of the images are of the highest quality, definitely  not unique to this article or images one finds in Wikimedia Commons; and it is challenging to find high quality images on this subject that can be displayed in Wikipedia,  so unless there is a higher quality replacement, removing an image because the quality is not top notch does not aid understanding of the style. Limiting Crew cut to three images does not provide more visual information and does not improve the article which is essentially visual in nature. Increasing understanding of the subject  of the article is Wikipedia's purpose. Thanks, MiltonPBMiltonPB (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent uploads did not appear to be constructive and has been or soon will be deleted. Please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. serioushat 12:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello serioushat/Twinsday, It is unclear which recent uploads are being alleged to appear to be other than "constructive" and have been or soon will be deleted? Thanks, MiltonPBMiltonPB (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Princeton(haircut)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton(haircut)&redirect=no Princeton(haircut)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)