{{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}} - Would prefer to archive by sections

Welcome!

Hello, MilesVorkosigan, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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 aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place{{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus^Talk00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look! It's a new blank userpage!

Don't have anything to say right now, but at least this is here in case someone wants to talk to me about an edit.

I'd have thought you'd write moreabout yourself :) You may want to move your above intro to your userpage (from this user talkpage). I hope you enjoy your wiki experience! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus^Talk00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know if there is a way to fix this? I would prefer to have my account name only. It looks like my cookie expired right in the middle of typing in the edit :/Thanks!

Nope, it used to be possible, but it took up too much developer time. I'm afraid the IP will have to live on in the page history.Henrik18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can always re-edit the page and add the user:Miles stuff by hand to the text if you want to claim it. But I came here to comment because I saw the name. Cheeky bastard! (meant in a friendly way)Sandpiper15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please go hereWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right aways and add your input.Merecat15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was already on my way to vote. Be careful what you ask for, though...  :) I'm not sure our political views match. Not telling what mine are, though, that's not what I'm on Wikipedia for.MilesVorkosigan16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see thisWikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me what you think of this:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination).
• You can leave your message on this talk page here.

Your user page comment on height is quite appropriate. Do you have bug batter problems?ww08:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was that not appropriate? The user deleted my comment in a discussion where I was asking the user to be polite to other editors. They were clearly hostile in their intention. --Strothra22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your last comments on my talk page does that mean you would condone reverting their talk page back to the vandalism tag? I'd like a second opinion. --Strothra22:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after this comment[1] I think I'll leave it alone. That individual clearly isn't completely okay and will probably only get more irrational until they get themself banned. --Strothra22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was interested to read your comment about the Template Spoiler being up for deletion. Although you weren't the only person to invokeWP:POINT, I would like to know why you think it is being violated, and why I should be blocked. Thank you,Chuck02:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to use the Abu Ghraib thing as a comparison of something I was already familiar with. My intention is not to get rid of the pics in that article, I already had that battle. I am currently concerned with the spoiler template, and you'll have to believe me when I say, I honestly think it is unneccesary. I was incorrect to list the reason for deletion as it was censorship, as it is not, but I could not think of another way to word what the problem was, which was later done under the few delete votes. Thank you for your comments and criticism,Chuck07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastfission is an admin, able to edit protected pages in a single bound. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, I always feel I'm likely to get these mysteries wrong, but unless I was completely derailed by the unbelievable autoblockery that hit WBardwin last night, there's surely chicanery atUser talk:David Shield. What makes you think David Shield wasonly hit by autoblocks? Please check outmy message, let me know what you think.Bishonen |talk09:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh,seriously. There's good faith and there's crazy talk.Bishonen |talk00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow. So you're saying to ignore the comments based on English-mockery, user-comparison and uncivility? Clever. But I'll pass. —Eternal Equinox |talk21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here as you removed my initial comment from your page.

To clarify: If you don't like reading jokes that don't concern you that are posted on someone else's talk page, perhaps you should stop reading them. The theory is similar to hitting oneself over the head with a hammer. If it hurts, stop doing it.MilesVorkosigan21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, actually I left the comments a couple of weeks ago, but nobody bothered to respond to them - and then they were archived (I was just about to start theWP:FARC too, but now I'll leave the comments up for longer and see if they can be addressed).AndyZ _t22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On your wording question: "virtually unavoidable" "almost predetermined" "almost pre-ordained". Just ideas. I don't really like the second two, but couldn't just come up with one.  :)Wikibofh_(talk)17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that Lois announced there will be at least one more Miles book?DS23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for the back and forth -- but I've got other things.Slacker13 (talk)05:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn’t seem to have anything to do with your decision to lie about Polygon, what were you trying to communicate?MilesVorkosigan (talk)05:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have put what I want changed onHulk Hogan's talk page, though next time you get into something like this make sure to readWP:ONUS. It is actually you who must go to the talk page to reach consensus, not me, as you want toinclude the material, whereas I want toexclude it. Always helpful for next time.Lemonademan22 (talk)07:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for switching from trying to just remove all of it with the LLM-spam and doing the actual editing, it's much better this way. And you're not understanding ONUS or consensus correctly. There was consensus to include the information, you were the sole person who disagreed.MilesVorkosigan (talk)21:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Lol.Lemonademan22 (talk)11:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tbanned by parties involved in the underlying dispute. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, theguide to arbitration and theArbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,Slacker13 (talk)21:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WowMilesVorkosigan (talk)21:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee,theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)03:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You are now a member of the club of editors who have been named as parties in frivolous or vexatious cases filed with ArbCom.Robert McClenon (talk)09:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)its a c[reply]

You might consider striking or removingthis one, unless you have evidence this editorsupport[s] sexual assault. I understand that that particular talk page is heated and it's frustrating to deal with potential meatpuppets (or worse,computers directed by meatpuppets), butthat particular aspersion seems an egregious one to cast. --tony02:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, given that you commented on my report of Alyo on theWP:ANEW, I wanted to ask you what the best way to proceed is. The so-called »content discussion« with Alyo on the article’s talk page is pointless, as can be seen with the link[2]. Thanks in advance. --2A04:4540:6424:7C00:E947:5A12:BB39:F241 (talk)13:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been making edits that constitute personal attacks against me, and refused to stop when asked to do so at the same Talk page. FollowingWP:NPA policy, I would like to once again ask you to behave in a civil way. Making untrue claims about people you don't know is not constructive, doesn't help to reach a consensus, and is generally not helpful. I hope that you will choose to interact in a more civilized fashion.White Spider Shadow (talk)18:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want people to notice when you're lying about what an author said, you should stop doing so. And please stop pretending that I'm lying about anything. I am not like you, this is offensive. And, obviously, I don't need to lie, the facts agree with me.

But I will stop pointing out that you're supporting a sex creep, you're correct that I don't have explicit evidence that you're doing it on purpose.MilesVorkosigan (talk)19:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that a quote that I provided was not something that the author wrote. The text is right there in her book.

Since you agree that you don't have evidence, please remove your remarks about "supporting sexual assault" from the Zak Smith talk page where you posted them. I don't mind most of your statements, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I hope you understand why this specific thing is too much.White Spider Shadow (talk)19:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) I've already responded to that, and the quote is only *partly* in the book and obviously does not mean what you claim in context. Several people have already explained this to you.

B) I'll strike it, that's a fair requestMilesVorkosigan (talk)19:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saw your response, and appreciate it. Have a good day.White Spider Shadow (talk)19:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For totally different reasons, I agree that haggling with accounts like this one, especially if you're certain they are sock-/meat-puppets, is a waste of your valuable time. This account has got you arguing on their terms and raising your own temperature. Don't let yourself be played. Still yourself. Wear yourwhite hat. The pagespace is a cesspool because the subject has been the guiding influence (and is likely coordinating this group of accounts). Let the process work itself out.BusterD (talk)23:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you're doing well.

Sorry for overriding and reversingyour edit whenI added another reference re criticism of Linehan's arrest just now - I just wasn't aware you'd made the edit, so I thought the only change I was making was adding another reference.

In terms of personal notability, Rowling and Musk are certainly notable.Robert Jenrick is a prominent politician who recently came second in the leadership election in one of the UK's biggest political parties and gets headlines quite a lot.Jonathan Hinder is less notable. However, the news articles also discussRupert Lowe's criticisms of the arrest, and he's prominent too, so perhaps he could replace Hinder. The criticisms made by them all are discussed in UK news headlines as part of the news of Linehan's arrest, so are notable in that sense too.

I'm not of an overly strong opinion on whether to keep their criticisms in the article or not. Eventually, the section in question will be filled out with how the case progresses more than anything else. However, these people are pretty prominent and their criticisms have been widely reported too.

Please let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks!13tez (talk)20:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that the people aren't notable, sorry I wasn't clear.

I meant I'm not sure that the criticisms are, but I (like you) don't want to edit war, so I'm not going to revert again.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for getting back to me.

I see what you mean. Like I said before, I don't feel that strongly about whether that line should be included, so I wouldn't really mind if you removed it. I definitely wouldn't re-revert the change, so I'll leave it up to you or someone else. Looking at the references used and coverage of the arrest generally, how notable do you feel these criticisms are? Do you think it's warranted to include them or that they're minutiae?

Thanks again!13tez (talk)20:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't feel terribly strongly about it either? I'm satisfied with bringing the question up as I don't know how this level of detail is normally handled. But thank you for being reasonable about it.MilesVorkosigan (talk)20:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, should we just leave it as it is and let other editors change or remove it based on what they think? Yeah, of course, you too!13tez (talk)21:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point for next time topics like this about a different wiki page should be discussed on that talk page not this articles talk page. Apologies thought I was on a different page.GothicGolem29 (talk)23:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking and explaining, I had a moment of “…what?? I thought that was one of the most positive disagreements I’ve ever seen here!”

Have a good day.MilesVorkosigan (talk)02:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get the reaction you have a good day too.GothicGolem29 (talk)11:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Springee (talk)04:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miles,

I hope you will come to ANI and respond to this report, especially by reviewing and commenting on some of the diffs that are being shared. I think you need to pause before accusing editors of lying or being dishonest in the future and think if there is a more diplomatic way to get across your points other than by leveling that personal attack against editors whose stance you disagree with.Liz^Read!Talk!05:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You aretopic-banned fromgender-related disputes and controversies and related people,broadly construed, and subject to a 1-wayinteraction ban withSpringee, until the conclusion ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. This does not prevent you from defending yourself against the accusations made by Springee at the ongoing AN/I thread, provided that you do so without engaging in furtheraspersions.

You have been sanctioned for battleground comments likethis one (alleging that Springee ispart of [a] group of anti-trans editors) during the ArbCom case's pendency.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as anuninvolved administrator under the authority of theArbitration Committee's decision atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, thecontentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in thelog of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read thebanning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may beblocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction usingthe appeal process. I recommend that you use thearbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you.  --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)05:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Requesting arbitration over serious issues in the Zak Smith RFC and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, theguide to arbitration and theArbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,White Spider Shadow (talk)16:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has enacted amotion in lieu of a full case:

For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust💬)07:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Zak Smith

You are receiving this message because you are onthe update list forTransgender healthcare and people. Theproposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome onthe talk pagein your own section. For the Arbitration Committee,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]