Talk:Daniel "Monkey Man" Roberts

blatantly autobiographical
This article is so obviously autobiographical, one sided and full of lies and un-cited BS. How do we get this page locked so that he can't keep doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.60.131 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ungodly mess
Says it all. Collect (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help that there's a cascade of unregistered or newly-registered editors who keep removing sourced information. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To the point where I'm wondering whether a request for page protection needs to be put in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So Frustrating
So Monkey tells a newspaper some lies (like him having a degree, he does not), they print the lies and then he cites it on Wikipedia. Roberts/Galindo is a thief, a lier and almost certainly a psychopath. He is currently living illegally in Bristol, England (his ex-wife's home town, presumably to continue his harassment of her by stopping her returning home), and claiming on Linkedin to be working at Nokia (he is not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.203.17 (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for the above? WP:BLP extends to the talk page: those kind of accusations are subject to removal here just as well as the article if they aren't back up with reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I can't cite anything, that is my whole point. Being citable does not make it true any more than not being citable makes it untrue. I do know him personally and can assure you that what I say is all true and that most of what is on the article page is untrue and blatantly written by Monkey himself. This makes a complete mockery of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.2.184 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, but WP:Verifiability is a guiding principle of Wikipedia, so articles will always go along with what has been published over what is original research. Likewise, your first-hand claims alone will not justify removing material backed up by secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

He is doing it again
I spent a great deal of time improving this article today only to have all my edits removed and called "malicious" by someone anonymous who's IP just happens to be in Bristol. Please can we stop him doing this and lock the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.94 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you start by reading the relevant Wikipedia policies: notably our policy regarding issues related to living persons, and our policy regarding reliable sourcing. All material used as a source, particularly where contentious and concerning a living person, needs to be from reliable, reputable, third-party publications. We do not use blogs, reader-submitted articles and the like. And neither do we use primary documents like court submissions. As for where an IP is based, this is irrelevant - anyone is entitled to remove material that appears to violate policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'd further suggest everyone takes note that we have now semi-protected the article, so it can only be edited by registered users. This time, the protection is for a limited period, but consider it a warning that we will extend (or escalate) protection if necessary to prevent policy violations in this article. It seems evident to me that there is some sort of dispute between individuals behind this contentious editing. Please take this elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a forum for such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk section displays poor form on behalf of Wikipedia Editors
Why should a section like this exist when all it shows are blatant claims made (mostly) on an emotional basic. The page has all factual refs and is in good standing however the comments here are slanderous. Where are the standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenodeon (talk • contribs) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Chickenodeon, while I have some sympathy for you here (especially regarding the psychopath statement which probably should be removed), what was your excuse for this? And you and your fellow IP editors should not be talking about "factual refs" as you seemingly can't distinguish between a newsmagazine cover story and an opinion piece, attempt to use Facebook postings as sources, and misrepresent what other source have to say. Poor form, indeed. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * NeilN, I may still be learning the Wikipedia ropes but I think you have proven my point at the ludicrous nature of the comments left behind on this page. I don't see any point and fail to see constructive purpose of your sarcastic reply.  Being a more senior editor of wikipedia, I think you should be assisting in resolving this problem than detracting from the issue at hand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenodeon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of my completely unsarcastic reply was that you'd get other editors to listen to you if it weren't so obvious you're only here to push a point of view. While I have your attention, can I get an answer on why you deleted part of Talk:Pirate_Cat_Radio and why you think Facebook posts are reliable sources but delete references to news stories appearing in newspapers as "blogs"? -- Neil N  talk to me  17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)