User talk:Captmonkey

Reverend and the Makers
Please see WP:NMG for the reason this has been removed from Wikipedia three times. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Captmonkey. Please visit WP:DRV, where the article is being discussed.  You will need to cite the sources for your claims of notability.  --Rob 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. At long last the article was undeleted.  A new deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Reverend and The Makers.  You will probably wish to substantially improve the article, to add any independent sources you have to the article.  For instance, an article about them touring, reviews in major publications, and any other stories about them (written independently) would help the article. --Rob 07:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

North London Derby
I feel I should tell you, I've noticed you and Saebhiar violated the 3RR rule on North London derby in the dispute. I should tell you it is my responsiblity to cool this. So I should say to you leave it for a few days otherwise you will be reported for violating WP:3RR. I have sent this to Saebhiar as well The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Andre Botelho
Just a quick note to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion template you placed on Andre Botelho because. The article makes a credible claim of significance about this person. Please remember that a newly-created article doesn't have to prove notability to avoid speedy deletion - it only has to make a credible claim that the subject might be notable. I suspect this article may end up being deleted via blp-prod all the same.

Please be aware that is normally inappropriate re-add a speedy deletion template when another editor (other than the creator of the article) has removed it, because speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions. If you believe the article still needs to be deleted, please consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD which can be used for deletions which are not covered by the speedy deletion criteria.

I am not an administrator and I do not have any special authority in this matter. If you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Thparkth (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is somewhat spammy but it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria you specified. Thparkth (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Why are we having this conversation in two places?) Please take the time to review the speedy deletion criteria A7. It is not appropriate to nominate an article for deletion under A7 for "not being notable" - that is not the criterion. Thparkth (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I've taken the time to research the article, I believe you're right about it being essentially spam and overly-promotional, so I've nominated it for deletion under that criteria. I presume we're both agreed on that action? :) Thparkth (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: St. Totteringham's day
Hello Captmonkey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of St. Totteringham's day, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: how is that an attack page? Thank you.  So Why  11:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Arsenal F.C. supporters has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --ANowlin: talk 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert edits without explanation - there was clear reasoning given in the edit summary. Wikipedia is no place for fatuous neologisms. Captmonkey (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Welsh Rarebit real.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Welsh Rarebit real.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 14:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jimbob-jr.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Jimbob-jr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)