User talk:Milbury

Hello, Milbury!

Help
General Help Characters Editing Layout Naming conventions Sources Style
Special Topics Caching Collapsible tables Consensus checks Disambiguation Images Int'l characters Interviews Quotes Portals Signatures Spoilers Tables of contents Templates Theories
For more help... Contact an administrator Admin Level Radicell RyanGibsonStewart Or leave a message Administrator Portal

Welcome to Heroes Wiki!

Here are a few links to get you started:

• If you are new to Heroes, you might want to start at the New User Portal.
• If you're not too familiar with editing wikis, you might like to start with Help:Editing.
• If you already are familiar with wikiediting, you might want to try Help:Style.
• If you're ready to get started, Template:Todo lists some ways you can help out.
• Of course, if you have your own idea for a new article, that's great, too.
• Recent Changes will let you see others' contributions as they happen.
  • To make Recent Changes more useful for all users, remember to provide an edit summary in the Summary field before you save your changes.
  • You can set the wiki to prompt you for a summary in your preferences.
• When posting on an article's Talk page you should add --~~~~ or click the signature button.
  • This will add a signature and timestamp to the end of your comment so others can easily tell who posted it.
  • Any new sections on an article's Talk page should be added to the bottom of the page and not to the top.
  • When editing normal article pages, don't sign your contributions.
• If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to leave a message for an administrator.
• You can also customize your user page if you like.

Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!

---

Civility

• Please try to remain civil in any discussions here. Thanks. (Admin 15:56, 11 February 2009 (EST))
  • But of course. I remain the wiki's humble servant. Thanks for dropping by. (Milbury 14:58, 16 November 2008 (CST))
• Milbury, some of your comments to other editors are quite offensive and needlessly confrontational in tone. Here, for instance, you seem to be targeting others. Some of your repeated reverting (here and here, for example) seems to be following an arbitrary rule that you're inventing with the hidden agenda of teasing others. Some of your memorable quotes are hysterical. Others seem just downright mean. Please watch your tone when addressing others. Thank you. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2009 (EST)

* Heh, the famous (or is that infamous? >P) Ryan thinks my stuff is funny. And I see I can't put anything past you. Yes, I'm afraid I have something of a predilection of teasing people who take themselves too seriously - being committed to accuracy and the best Wiki possible is one thing, but too much seriousness and it crosses the line into just plain self-righteousness, which is unappealing in any enviroment. Every Wiki has to have a few guys like me to keep the elite from falling prey to fascism. Nevertheless, I'll concede I was a little hard on Thrashmeister. Good kid, he just has to learn to be a little bit more civil in his discourse - that salvo on microwave rays was not the best way to greet a new member. --Milbury 13:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)

• I have anger management problems. I lost my temper. I'm sorry. It was nothing personal. But I was under the impression that we were on good terms again. I really didn't understand why you chose me to troll all of a sudden again. -Sincerely, Thrashmeister » talk- 17:33, 18 February 2009 (EST)
• Aw, Thrash. Silly Nemesis, you don't have to apologise! To be perfectly serious (if only for a moment), I think you really do do a great job here, and as far as I'm concerned, we're cool. :) As you've no doubt noticed, I tend to poke fun whenever people start taking themselves too seriously. It's just a quirk - whenever I do it, just give me a cup of warm milk and a healthy beating and I'll be on my way. >P --Milbury 17:45, 18 February 2009 (EST)
• Milbury, I couldn't agree with you more about people taking themselves too seriously. There are a few wikis I avoid simply because people there think that their online work is Very Serious Business. It's very offputting. However, it's really not up to you--or me--to decide who is taking themselves too seriously, and who is doing things "just right". Rather, if one does decide that a person is taking himself too seriously, it's really not one's place to insult, degrade, or otherwise offend. Compared to other wikis, I think we're a fairly lighthearted bunch. But one thing I do take very seriously is the feelings of others, especially of those who might be offended by faceless words in an online discussion. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It's best just to contribute to the good will here rather than to the tearing others down, for any reason. Thanks. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2009 (EST)

• I have to agree with Ryan. You are extremely rude and sarcastic and put other people's ideas (and them, for that matter) down a lot. If you don't think this wiki is such "Srs Bzns" then why are you even signed up on the site? This is a place where everyone enjoys sharing ideas, we don't need a snide comment from you in between discussions. Thanks. --JessicaHeartsMatt 10:37, 18 February 2009 (EST)

* Why am I signed up on the site? I don't remember reading in the Rules & Regulations that I need to justify my membership to anyone. Additionally, I find it ironic that you are rude in confronting somneone about alleged rudeness. But out of courtesy, I'll answer your question. Why did I join? Two reasons: (1) Because I am a hopeless Heroes geek, and (2) Because I really have too much free time on my hands. It just so happens that I think people who take themselves too seriously need poking fun once in a while at lest they lose perspective. This isn't the Lord's work, Jessica. We're all here to have fun and fanboy/fangirl about Heroes, so for heaven's sake, lighten up. If there's one problem with online discourse, it's that people take themselves far too seriously. --Milbury 13:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)

• • Cause that's how I do things, if I didn't take things seriously, I wouldn't have joined this wiki in the first place, and you might want to pick your words more carefully, your "ivory tower" comment seems too much like a personal attack for me, I haven't attacked you, all I did was disagree with you, if you feel the need to personally attack those who disagree with you, it's not my problem. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:15, 18 February 2009 (EST)
    • I chose my words carefully and never say anything I don't mean to say. I regret that my argument was construed as a personal attack, but I don't regret the argument itself. The point is still valid - Arthur is loathed among the fandom as a sub-par character, as any visit to TV Tropes, Livejournal, or even a simple Google search will prove. Your arguments are well reasoned, but you look at things too coldly and fail to see the human side to issues. Including, ironically, this very Wiki. Taking yourself seriously is fine, but there is a fine line between decorum and mounting a pedestal. Currently you straddle that line. --Milbury 15:22, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Theory:Adam Monroe

You suggest that the writers killed Adam off because they resent him. You support this by suggesting that bringing Adam back would bring viewers back. I point out that bringing Adam back at this point is difficult, and that the lost viewers weren't lost yet when they made it difficult. You point out that there eventually were lost viewers. How does that go against what I said, or support your theory? - Josh (talk/contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the Nielsen Ratings page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the only reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the way in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --Milbury 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - Josh (talk/contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

And, I argue, they didn't care. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --Milbury 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - Josh (talk/contribs) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --Milbury 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - Josh (talk/contribs) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not saying bringing Adam back would reverse the show's fortunes instantly, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction. The writers need to find the right balance between following their own creative road and giving the viewers what they want - Volume 3 was a drastic divide between the former (the first six episodes) and the latter (the later seven). Volume 4 is getting things back on track but there are still a lot of problems in need of fixing. --Milbury 21:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Question

When did I ever say "Awww, yeah." to someone calling you a troll? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

* Never, really. I just find the idea of someone as straight-laced and serious as you standing around and saying "Aww, yeah." to Thrashmeister's troll pronouncement to be hilarious. And, as you may have noticed, I'll parody anything if it brings the lulz. Especially myself. --Milbury 12:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)