User talk:Monkeymanman

Cast (band)

If, for reasons only known to yourself, you don't believe the BBC reference - contact the show yourself.

92.12.106.206 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it cannot be confirmed, me contacting the show personally will not give a valuable third party ref, it would be classed as 'hear say'. Third party refs will become available if it is to happen. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now added another reference confirming Manchester show.

92.12.106.206 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this to the article discussion page in question. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Adam lede work

Nice work.

Also, you know that you can remove the welcome banner at the top of this talk page? If you're not using the links then it makes for a cleaner layout and makes it easier to get to the table of contents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind but I thought you could maybe use this

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.--John (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That IP UserI left you a reply on Talk:Lorenzo_Amoruso#Racism_U_turn but just to add here - I've been kinda away from WP for a day or so. I'm hoping to dive into that article and clean up the additions from that user sometime in the next few days. I took a look at their other edits and there seems to be other material to clean. I wasn't sure if you planned to d oany of it - so before jumping in wanted to check :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for asking, yeh the other articles the user has edited need seriously cleaned, especialy the Hugh Dallas one. Although another user has tagged it for a complete rewrite recently which i would agree with. I plan to try to do some of it in the next few days and would be greatful if you could check it to prevent the user from making accusations about biased intentions (i will leave you a message). Monkeymanman (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yep I was just reading that article. In the spirits of AGF I just left him/her a pretty extensive policy reading list, hopefully that will get across what we are trying to explain...... I'll keep an eye on the articles for content. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]ReminderJust a reminder that the ANI you raised against myself still does not seem to be marked as resolved. Now that we are to proceed through RfC as a proper means of resolving the issues, I'm sure you will agree that the knee-jerk ANI is now doubly innapropriate. I look forward to its timely withdrawal and continued dialogue/co-operation 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Seeing as you are still trying to include material (which you have been instructed not to) on the article that raised the ANI debate initially ....Monkeymanman (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Rangers SeasonsJust a heads up. 86.172.236.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding similar rewrites to the other rangers seasons. I didn't revert them because it expanded the content - was just weasely. I'm not sure I have the time to correct, but if you do then I thought I would let you know :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks Tom, i noticed one of them and had my suspicions about the others but had yet to check. Cheers. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at ScottyBerg's talk page. Message added 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Al Pacino peer reviewHello, I've made some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Pacino/archive1.--BelovedFreak 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi, I'm really sorry, but I completely forgot to go back to this. I will try to have a good look later today.--BelovedFreak 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry it took so long. it's looking good. I've left a few more comments for you to peruse. --BelovedFreak 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Time for discussion re The Best (song)I'm leaving this message as a courtesy to you that the edit war at The Best (song) has run on long enough; it's time to take the issue to the talk page, lest either you or the IP gets blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]thanks for the heads up, i have repeatedly asked that the user in question use the talk pages. Sorry for any trouble. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] No problem. In cases like that, I usually make sure to put "Please discuss" or the like in the edit summary, and then start a section there with a "What's your object to…?" That gets the discussion going—or makes it easy to see who has attempted to discuss it and who has refused. (Or, in a case like this, put "restoring sourced material deleted without explanation" in the edit summary, so it's easier to make a case that I'm reverting vandalism.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You are probably aware, but the same editor is active with similar situations across wikipedia at the moment and it is dragging my patience to its limit. Thanks for the reply and advice Monkeymanman (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The IP has been blocked for now for edit warring. Don't give up hope; disruptive editors are annoying but some good content has come out of his additions (that's clutching for straws). In the meant time here's a Barnstar for all your help and to stop you feeling down. Keep up the good work --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) discouraged.[reply]The Special Barnstar for staying calm and working against disruptive editing despite the headaches Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page. Message added 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]Non-free files in your user spaceHey there Monkeymanman, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Monkeymanman/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.See a log of files removed today here.Shut off the bot here.Report errors here.Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]For future referenceIf you take matters to BLP/N it is courteous to notify other involved editors. It is also considered courteous not to quote selectively from the sources, so as to to misrepresent the issue. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]'Courteous', maybe, but not 'needed'. My question was about content, not anything relating to your editing history. I dont believe i did and did not intend to 'misrepresent' any issue. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please remember to conduct yourself courteously per WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strikeout the selective quote to show that your intention was not to mislead. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] My intention was not to mislead, and do not think i did. The fact that the first person to mention the ref on the BLP noticeboard quoted the author, shows that they have read the source for themselves. Therefore my quote on the noticeboard was irrelevant. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]IP disruptionThis user is disrupting multiple article of living people, a report will be required as his behavior is ongoing at multiple articles. I am collecting data for the report.Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]TalkbackHi, sorry again for taking a little while to get back to you, but I've responded at User talk:Belovedfreak#Reply. :) --BelovedFreak 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]revertPerhaps you should self revert the last change. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see that the Admin user:Crazycomputers has protected the article and recommended dispute resolution and discussion, a very fair result under the circumstances. Please use policies and guidelines rather that revert, revert, revert as that path is a slippery slope. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ally McCoistYou may be interested to comment here at the BLP/N. You may also wish to notify user:Off2riorob as I am unable to write on his talk page. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Your GA nomination of Michael J. FoxHello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Michael J. Fox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 14+ days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]GA Nomination HeldI've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. Once you have corrected the items I have listed for correction please add {{done}} next to the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. --Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]The portion that I was most concerned about was indeed the "Mid Career" section. I will check off the part regarding the focused. I am still thinking about the MOS part though, for this type of article with many tables I may ask for a second opinion. --Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I will re-read it. If you wish to do more work on the page you may but at this time it is not necessary. I will take it from here and get back to you. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]GA Nomination QuestionI am truly sorry that I have not closed your request for GA I will take care of that immediately and will put that on the top priority of my list. I do not feel that it is necessary for a second opinion unless you believe it s necessary. So you know, I intend on approving the request, I just need a response from you for me to do it making sure you don't need a second opinion. I need the response because once it is closed it is final. Thank you, Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Talk:Bible John. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Al Pacino pageNot sure if you're aware of this: User:Monkeymanman/Sandbox, but you may want to be the one to deal with it. Yinzlanddone. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Taking you up on your offerHi, if you wouldn't mind would you watch list Nichole Kidman for her filmography section? Mostly IP's keep adding non-notable awards to her. I'd appreciate the help. If you look at my contributions you will see that I removed a lot on non-notable awards in the past few days from articles, so much so that it's actually getting annoying. So help would really be good for me. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nichole Kidman talk pageHi, in case you miss this I thought I would bring it to your attentions. You reverted this editor as vandalism and I think it was a good faith edit. Have a happy, healthy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]TagsHi! If something has been tagged since 2008 or 2009 and still not cited appropriately then either the contested text should be rv or the tag date updated to reflect the last inspection, no? Also tagging every other sentence, when the text can be merged and one tag only needed per paragraph, say, is preferable in every way, when possible. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]"rv, thats not how it works as i have been repeatedly told" -- who told you what?? Perhaps we should explore any misconceptions either of us has. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] OK so the text which has been contested since 2008, 2009, etc. should be rv. I'm on it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]ThanksThanks for the heads up - and the warm words ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]OverlinkHi Monkeyman. Could you explain the overlink thing as I didn't quite understand it (possibly through being over-tired at work!) Mattun0211 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] yep - pretty obvious - it had been along day and I just couldn't work it out! Mattun0211 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Old FirmI understand your concern, however no-one really edits/vandalises that page and their was clear criteria as to which matches to include. I just assumed another editor would see that and add the Rangers results in as I couldn't really be bothered doing them. Anyway the reason I added that in was because I think their should be more information about the footballing side of the OF rather than just the political stuff, I was going to do a table with all OF matches since the SPL began and also Manager v Manager and Manager v Club records but if you really think it would be a bad idea then I suppose theirs no point. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]The celtic wiki is quite bias but I think those results are all correct, although their is also soccerbase which is already on the page, I think a table of matches should go back to the formation of the SPL otherwise where would you stop. What do you think about the biggest wins their is only about 3 or 4 each but if we only put the 1 in then their shouldn't be 3 sections on it. Adam4267 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Hello monkeyman i started the head to head table, you can help edit it if you want to. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that monkeyman. Adam4267 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]RE:RadcliffeOkay, thanks! I'll be looking forward to it. Guy546^(Talk) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Artoasis's talk page. Message added 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]