User talk:MiltonP Ottawa

License tagging for Image:Hampton 009.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Hampton 009.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to wikipedia. If you need help, don't be shy to ask. You may ask me by leaving a message on my talk page.Bless sins (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisher Park Public School
Hi, thank you for your contribution. Just a small formatting point; comments on project and talk pages should be put at the bottom of the page rather than the top. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Enemey of the people
Hi! I'm not going to continue removing the POV template but I would appreciate an explanation of what needs to be corrected (in your opinion) in the article before it the tag can be removed. You may respond here, my talk page, or the article talk page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
There is no reason to make personal attacks on Wikipedia, as you have done here. Please refrain from attacking other editors. thank you. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack. How is that personal in any regard? It's a counter-argument against this users POV. This was a statement. Not an attack. Get over yourself and do it quickly.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Whoa. Liberals AND Conservatives. There's hardly a distinction between the two in the United States. Try thinking outside your white privileged suburban home for once. It's not a shift in thinking." and "Of course the public bought it completely and now most people believe that it was a grassroots movement by military families." and "FUCK THE TROOPS".  all jump out at me.  Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by admonishing me to "get over it". Protonk (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who exactly am I attacking here? Liberals and conservatives. And telling someone to think outside of their privileged elite class is hardly a personal attack. It's just good advice. Your POV is interfering with what you think constitutes a personal attack. You agree with this particular user so you think I'm attacking him.MiltonP Ottawa (talk)
 * Let's not get pomo here. Accusing someone of being a member of a "privileged, elite class" and then claiming that their ignorance is preventing them from seeing the truth is easily a personal attack, even if it was done in a more respectful manner than you did.  What or who I agree with isn't important.  As I said in another comment with Smashthestate, you have no idea what my politics are or where I come from.  Since this is the english wikipedia, you may make some good guesses, but beyond that any bald accusations are unwarranted.  If you want to ask people to "look outside the box", then do so.  Suggest that not all persons see US action as right and good and that the "support the troops" slogan could only be seen as positive within a small subset of the world's population.  Insulting people and shouting "FUCK THE TROOPS" is not the way to go about this.


 * Also, what is my POV, if you think it is interfering with my ability to judge personal attacks. I would be intrigued to know. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that you're a Canadian white boy with a computer and an internet connection, who is just a little bit insecure about growing up in a white privileged suburban home, particularly since not all of your friends have as much stuff as you do. Maybe I'm right, maybe not, but it's kind of irritating when someone makes assumptions about you, isn't it?   Nevertheless, you raise some good points about the Pentagon's interest in a so-called grassroots campaign.  You don't have to "shock" anyone in order to be listened to.  I've been threatened before with being "banned" from Wikipedia over not being civil, so I toned it down some.  It's obvious that you're intelligent, so why go to the brink of being kicked off?  Though I don't agree with you on some of what you say, I'd hate to see the door shut on you for something that could be avoided.  Good luck to you, hope you keep contributing, etc. etc. Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to change the POV white bourgeois bias on Wikipedia. I really don't care if I'm banned because I'm fighting an unmovable object. That doesn't mean I won't fight but it doesn't mean I will win either. There are too many OCD nerds on Wikipedia with too much time on their hands who will fight tooth-and-nail to make sure the status quo will not change. There's so few people who actually disagree with the status quo, not nearly enough to make a difference and there's thousands of anal-retentive users who will ensure that every edit is undone no matter how civil or how well-written it is. This isn't my first negative experience with Wikipedia, it's probably my 10th. Articles on bourgeois geek interests remain while poverty-related issues are quietly swept under the rug by the biased users and biased admins. The internet has a rich white male bias. Maybe that will change one day, if it does Wikipedia will change because right now it has the exact same bias.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize you aren't the first person to suggest that the internet has some sort of bias toward white male adults in the north american continent, right? Shocking us out of our bias by coming in and announcing that we are all blinded if we can't see what "support the troops" really is doesn't help at all.  It also doesn't help if you make yourself out to be a martyr.  NO ONE IS GUNNING FOR YOU.  No one is trying to suppress you.  All we are asking is that contributions to the mainspace of the encyclopedia (articles) be made with verifiable claims from reliable sources.  All we are asking outside of mainspace (talk, wikipedia, etc) is that you refrain from insulting other editors.  As for the bias of wikipedia, of course we are biased.  We are building an encyclopedia.  It is an inherently backwards looking enterprise.  We take information from dead authors written on dead trees and form it into some kind of neutral repository.  We have a "neutral" point of view as a core policy.  This doesn't mean that new sources of information are forbidden, I'm just trying to explain that intertia is at work.  and in some cases intertia is a good thing.  You want the repository of information for a society to have considerable lag.  There are plenty of places in society for new information to be absorbed and utilized quickly.  Some things serve functionally as anchors.  encyclopedias fall somewhere on the anchor part of the continuum.


 * Approaching it from the standpoint that the encyclopedia serves to challenge established viewpoints is liable to get you into some conflicts, because that is not what wikipedia is. If you insist upon referring to other users in a derogatory fashion then you can expect to have problems.  If, on the other hand, you choose to help bring heterodox thinking into articles through the addition of verifiable claims, then few people will bother you.  Some people will, to be sure, but the internet is a big place.  Just the other day, someone insulted me on the presumption that I was an American and insulted me (without knowing it) on the basis of my service to my country.  I didn't even need to have a specific point of view in order to be assailed.  This may not be very pleasant for you to hear, but it happens to be the way things work around here.  If you don't feel you can work in an environment like than, than may I suggest that the environment may not be for you? Protonk (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that anything outside the status quo won't be included in Wikipedia. Yes, some nerds decided that that's not what Wikipedia is and this wasn't created to challenge the status quo. Of course not. That doesn't mean that any articles can't have content that challenge the status quo in them and that every article has to be written from the perspective of a white male. Notice for example that categories like Feminist Science Fiction have been deleted and merged with 'Women in science fiction'. It's not at all the same thing. The frustration stems from this kind of knee jerk reactionary behaviour on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is the biggest boy on the block and many people use it without peeking under the hood to see how it's made. They should because underneath there are a bunch of privileged white boys bickering about articles. I think it's my duty to make changes that reflect the viewpoints of people who may agree with me. That means perhaps more 'criticism' of articles or articles that are counterpoints to ideas like 'Support Our Troops'. I've started a homelessness in Ottawa article. Why? Because these are the kind of articles that aren't' on Wikipedia and need to be. People write articles about their own city but even those are POV because they aren't willing to write about the social problems that occur there. Everyone has a bias. The problem is that Wikipedia is specifically written by people who have one particular bias. Many articles are removed because they aren't about things happening right this minute. That means there aren't articles like An injury to one is an injury to all from the IWW to pick one motto from the labour movement. There is a labour movement section but it's particularly crippled by the reactionary nerds on Wikipedia who just won't let things be and feel that they have to edit every article even if they don't know anything about its content. That's just part of the problem of Wikipedia. Everyone becomes an expert on something even though they probably aren't one.

I edit articles occasionally on Anarchopedia but besides being topics that aren't on Wikipedia getting hits (like Ottawa Panhandlers Union article) there is really no point. Everyone goes to Wikipedia so I would rather stay and fight here than run off and try to work somewhere else where the conditions and rules might be more fair. Although I create articles like Homeless in Ottawa and I'm thinking about other topics related to the labour movement, it won't be long before they're deleted. It's quite impossible to fight the Wikipedia admins who all have the privileged white boy bias. If they disagree with something they do delete your articles and as an ordinary user there is nothing you can do. This is probably the biggest problem in the cult of Wikipedia.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we drop the "privileged white boys" shtick? You can replace "wikipedia" with "any other site on the internet" and it will still be true.


 * If you are here to add articles to wikipedia that we can't include because of our bias, I salute that. Just so long as you add verifiable claims from reliable sources with a neutral point of view, you should help us expand areas of knowledge.  But if you came here with an axe to grind, you are going to be unhappy.  If you came here with the intent of rocking the boat and inserting your point of view, don't be surprised when it gets reverted.  We aren't "reactionary nerds" because we are responding to this we are simply trying to keep the encyclopedia factual, neutral and clear.


 * On that note, have you considered that one of the reasons wikipedia has more hits than more parochial sites is because we enforce these guidelines? Wikipedia was built with certain expectations and we can't just coast on those in order to use it as a soapbox.  You claim that a fault of wikipedia is the citizen editors (rather than experts, I guess), wouldn't this allow for a more inclusive point of view?  In other words, if I limited the right to edit to a privileged few, wouldn't this increase rather than decrease the status quo bias?  And furthermore, hasn't it worked out pretty well so far?  For not having paid historians on staff, wikipedia seems to do well for itself.


 * I'm going to ask you, one last time, to stop using phrases like "nerds", "cult", etc. to describe the people you are working with--consider this a second warning about personal attacks. Some of us self-identify as nerds.  Some of us don't.  I would imagine that very few profess to be in a cult.  These may be loosely defined as personal attacks.  It is your talk page, so you are free to ask individual editors to leave at any time but you are not free to insult us.  Why don't you step back and think about all of this.  No one is repressing you in asking you to abide by some standard of conduct.  No one is "hiding the truth" in reverting this edit.  If there had been a little superscripted number after that sentence that went to a reference, would I have deleted it?  NO, assuming that the reference verified the text.  There is room for new information in wikipedia as long as it isn't Original Research.  Like I said on the talk page, go to the library and check out Manchester's The Glory and the Dream.  It is a good, well respected labor history.  You are likely to get more mileage out of that then from some obscure post colonial historians or some well known gadfly (Chomsky, Zinn, etc).  Take a book like that and start including some information here and there.  Cite it scrupulously--you are going to need to, because of all that 'bias' out there.  If you add sourced, neutral information, there is nothing 'we' can do to you.  But if you continue to add unsourced information, don't be surprised if it is reverted each and every time.  You want to talk about McCarthy in that enemy of the people article?  Fine.  There are about a hundred popular books on him or the HUAC.  There are also about a thousand scholarly articles on the social underpinnings of the period.  There is NO SHORTAGE of sources.


 * So where does this leave us? In my mind, the outlook is simple.  If you continue along the path you are on, you will be unhappy.  That isn't a mafioso style threat, I'm not an admin, I have no power over you.  It is just a prediction.  You will be reverted/warned/etc and you will continue to ascribe it to the "cabal" rather than a dissonance between your objectives and the objectives of the project.  If you decide you want to stay and be happy, I am more than happy to work on articles with you or help find sources but I must insist that we agree that the fundamental purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not to rock the boat.  If you want to rock the boat, this isn't the place for it.  So, can we come to agreement? Protonk (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to ask you, one last time, to stop using phrases like "nerds", "cult", etc. to describe the people you are working with--consider this a second warning about personal attacks."

No. I won't comply with that. It's bullshit and you know it. Consider it a political statement. If other people can make political statements on their user page then I believe I have every right to as well. I can call Wikipedians nerds, sociopaths and anything else I want on my talk page. I don't really consider it a threat to ban me either. You know as well as I do that it's quite easy to create another account. I think the goal is to create an encyclopedia but most encyclopedias aren't as biased and as poorly written as Wikipedia. Wikipedia in itself is an honourable idea but it's terribly run. The English version has a strong US bias and that needs to be removed.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. consider that your third warning then.  Please try to work with us to fix the problems you see.  No one is threatening to ban you, we are just telling you that your behavior violates our behavioral guidelines and policies. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are an enemy of the people. Do you really have nothing better to do?MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this is the thing about that question. You and I are involved in a dialogue.

Protonk (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, consider this dialogue officially closed.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of An injury to one is an injury to all
I have nominated An injury to one is an injury to all, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/An injury to one is an injury to all. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not alter or amend other peoples talkpages
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Editors are at liberty to remove any comment or edit made to "their" userspace except certain templates. Reverting an editor at their talkpage is considered extremely uncivil, and is taken as deliberate vandalism. Do not make this mistake again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who gives a shit?MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Incivility damages this project
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC) I.W.W. I.U. 660; Milw. G.O.B.; been a Wobbly since before you were born
 * Including the fact that you were a Wobbly before me isn't very civil on its own. Putting in smaller text is also extremely passive-aggressive. Are you sure you're a Wob?MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Milton, I'm sorry we've gotten off on the wrong foot. I stumbled on that article by accident, and have nothing against SmashTheState or his (or your) edits. Please, let's work together. (After all, everybody knows that Wobs never, ever, ever squabble among ourselves.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
I have posted a question at Deletion review which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PRODing articles
When you put up an article for PROD, please use. Please don't use dated prod directly - there are details which you don't put in properly. For more information, please read Template:Dated prod/doc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  D OUBLE B LUE (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mort Goldman merge proposal
Thanks for your work on this.

When proposing a merge, it is helpful to start the discussion on that article's Talk page. See Talk:Mort Goldman. I've taken the liberty of announcing this discussion in Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy.

Neil Goldman (Family Guy), Joe Swanson and Pewterschmidt family could use the same treatment. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denis Rancourt
I have nominated Denis Rancourt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Denis Rancourt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2009 has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your massive deletions to Titanic, though I'll have to assume were good faithed, were most unhelpful. Alientraveller (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not make controversial mass deletions without suggesting on the talk page. If you don't want to read how the film was made, then don't read it. Alientraveller (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of useless facts and trivia. That's not what Wikipedia was intended for. Please re-read the rules concerning Wikipedia pages.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

I don't care if you think it's useless. Discussing an alternate ending in Plot is not good writing. Btw, if you want to discuss it here then fine, don't duplicate it on my talk page. Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not what *I* think at all. It's wikipedia which is NOT a collection of technical details and movie trivia. Save that for fan pages and fan wikis.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again? Please discuss on talk pages because as we all know, "Trivia" is such a generic term. An FA articles does not contain trivia lists. Alientraveller (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again. Yes. I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines on trivia. Don't get all freaked out. This isn't your personal fan forum.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up: You are a topic of discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180. — Erik (talk • contrib) 01:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Alientraveller's userpage
Please do not vandalize other user's pages, this includes moving their page to a different name. This will be your only warning in the matter. If you persist, you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. -- VS talk 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Suspected sock puppets/MiltonP Ottawa. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject View Askew Invite
Hello,

I noticed that you edited a Kevin Smith or View Askew Productions related article. Wikipedia currently has a View Askew WikiProject which aims to improve all Kevin Smith and View Askew related articles. You are free to join or can explore what the project is about by clicking here. Here are some other good links to help you get started with Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:BlueseaQuebec.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:BlueseaQuebec.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, I'm Winner 42. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User:Fredmaack— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me!  23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)