User talk:MilesVorkosigan

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

Welcome!

Hello, MilesVorkosigan, and welcome 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the creator

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 know who you are :)

I'd have thought you'd write more about 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 ^Talk 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out by WP during edit, IP showing in page history

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. Henrik 18:16, 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) Sandpiper 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments wanted

Please go here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) right aways and add your input. Merecat 15:52, 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. MilesVorkosigan 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Important - Your input requested ASAP *

Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:31, 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.

name choice

Your user page comment on height is quite appropriate. Do you have bug batter problems? ww 08:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innapropriate vandalism tag?

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. --Strothra 22:30, 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. --Strothra 22:46, 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. --Strothra 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Hello, I was interested to read your comment about the Template Spoiler being up for deletion. Although you weren't the only person to invoke WP:POINT, I would like to know why you think it is being violated, and why I should be blocked. Thank you, Chuck 02:58, 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, Chuck 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected talk page

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

Blocked by mistake? Don't think so.

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 at User talk:David Shield. What makes you think David Shield was only hit by autoblocks? Please check out my message, let me know what you think. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Sock-o-rama

Oh, seriously. There's good faith and there's crazy talk. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re: If you dislike humour

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 | talk 21:25, 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. MilesVorkosigan 21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War I

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 the WP:FARC too, but now I'll leave the comments up for longer and see if they can be addressed). AndyZ _t 22:43, 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]

News

Have you seen that Lois announced there will be at least one more Miles book? DS 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

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]

WP:ONUS

By the way I have put what I want changed on Hulk Hogan's talk page, though next time you get into something like this make sure to read WP:ONUS. It is actually you who must go to the talk page to reach consensus, not me, as you want to include the material, whereas I want to exclude 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]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

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

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

Request for Arbitration declined

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]

ArbCom Defendant Club

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]

Civility

You might consider striking or removing this one, unless you have evidence this editor support[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), but that particular aspersion seems an egregious one to cast. --tony 02:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta United content dispute

Hi, given that you commented on my report of Alyo on the WP: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]

Personal attacks

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. Following WP: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 request MilesVorkosigan (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 your white 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]

Criticism of Linehan arrest

Hey, I hope you're doing well.

Sorry for overriding and reversing your edit when I 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 discuss Rupert 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]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and related people, broadly construed, and subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Springee, until the conclusion of Wikipedia: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 further aspersions.

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

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked 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 using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration 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]

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

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

Motion enacted in lieu of a case

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

The topic of Zak Smith is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction. This restriction is set to lapse automatically one year after the enactment of this motion. If an editor believes this restriction should be extended, they may request the Committee consider an extension by posting an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in the final month of the restriction's timeframe.

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

Proposed decision for Transgender healthcare and people posted

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]