User talk:Monkeymanman/Archive 1

Adam Mitchell (golfer)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Adam Mitchell (golfer). Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ice bucket


The article Ice bucket has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a guide.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cooper
Remember to add references when you add new material to Wikipedia. Everything here needs to be verifiable. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I would be careful on the Rangers article. Check out Edit warring. I wouldn't want anyone getting blocked for this. You both seem to be discussing and edit warring. You should stick to the discussion and if you can't resolve your differences then there are other routes to go down. Jack forbes (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If an admin came along they wouldn't care if you had wanted or not wanted to edit war. Remember though, I asked if there were a consensus to leave the article as it was and had no reply. If at that stage you and others had agreed to the consensus you wouldn't be having this argument now. I would suggest asking for outside help if you can't both agree. Jack forbes (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics
See here SONG. Most pop music lyrics are copyrighted, and we cannot reproduce verbatim on Wiki. --Madchester (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning
I left a comment on WT:FOOTY about this, but consider this to be a warning. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and continuing to edit war with particular users is unproductive. Whether or not other editors are misbehaving, it is not your prerogative to engage them in long-drawn out and pointless arguments about the basis of the dispute in question, neither on our project pages nor the user talk pages. I've warned as well. You would do well to do everything possible not to get drawn into more arguments with that user. If you get reverted again, leave a comment on the appropriate talk page with an appropriate rationale and leave it be until others have their input. The Rangers articles are being watched by a good many editors, and fringe or controversial arguments will be removed in due course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, that was the reason I went to the project about the Walter Smith article because I knew it would just turn into a never ending argument as usual. I will take your advice in future.  Thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I am not wanting to get into a similar situation with the Scottish Premier League article, where the same user, amongst others, are looking to remove all context of the article by including a ‘fans’ section about halfway down the page, this looks as though it will eventually get farcical with every last mention of ‘fan’ misbehaviour included amongst other things.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Gok Wan
Thanks for reverting at Gok Wan. It's normally best to check the page history when reverting vandalism – if the same IP has made multiple edits and the last one is vandalism, it's a sure bet the rest are too. You might like to check out How to deal with vandalism.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Monkeymanman/Archive 1
Hi, just letting you know I moved Monkeymanman/Archive 1 to User talk:Monkeymanman/Archive 1, as the archive should be a user sub page. Best,- Kingpin13 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * cheers(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Gazza pic.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gazza pic.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I got the file off of photobucket.com, someone else recomended this one on the discussion page, would it be satisfactory to say that it was taken off of that particular website? Thanks (Monkeymanman (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC))


 * You did not provided a source url, so please provide the url for the page the image is on, not the image itself. Then we can check the copyright. However many photobucket images do not state the copyright status but are most likely copyright and therefore not usable. We prefer a bad free image over a better quality non-free image. Try to find a known free image; maybe on Flickr. You will usually find that free images are specifically stated to be so, while many copyright images don't actually say so but they are still copyright. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Here is a freely licenced Flickr image you might use somewhere in the article if not for now in the infobox. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the page that the picture is on, i dont think it says anything about ownership of the image or anything http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/gg16/gusintheuk2/?start=300, another image from flickr could be http://www.flickr.com/photos/geminiali/1444763402/ i take it that is freely licensed? Thanks again(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Under the "additional information" section in the right-hand sidebar it plainly says "all rights reserved". Unless an image is explicitly licensed for free sharing and modification we can't use it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:PaulGascoigne.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:PaulGascoigne.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your allegation of sock-puppetry
Please be very careful and remember to assume good faith. I have no idea who Martin Colloby is, but he isn't me. Baseless allegations of sock puppetry are really not cool. The Rangers FC article is on my watchlist - I saw the new section on the talk page, so added my input. If I had seen this discrepancy in the text before Martin C pointed it out, I would have corrected it without any discussion - prior discussion is simply not required to correct inaccurate information. The only POV being pushed there is your obvious fondness for Rangers.

We disagree on an issue of content - deal with it at the article talk page. If you continue in this vein, I will seek admin action. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Originally I was trying to get a second opinion of the content disagreement from another editor who I am aware has contributed greatly to virtually every article within Scottish football including the article in question, he was not bothered but recommended to take it to someone else, I did, but I probably should not of. We should have ended the argument long before it reached that stage.


 * As for the sockpuppet allegation, having been very annoyed with sockpuppets in the past and not knowing at the time how to handle it I jumped to an extreme conclusion this time around, I like you are unaware how investigations into sockpuppetry are carried out but I was of the opinion that there should be some form of fool proof way to determine whether a certain user is a sockpupper of the other or not, I was also of the opinion that an admin would have this ability to find out, but obviously not.


 * Taking your word as fact I am very sorry that I made that allegation, I made it rashly and without thinking twice, after making it I did consider deleting it but that would probably have looked worse than the way it is just now.


 * I propose that in the future I will try to end any argument with you over content as soon as possible and if we cannot agree then we both must try to get a second opinion from a skilled editor.


 * I apologise again for making the rash allegation, and if you accept I will make the same statement on User:Kuru discussion page, explaining I was wrong to make any form of allegation and wrong to take a meaningless argument to him about something that could have been finished with 2 weeks ago.(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Ok, thanks. I appreciate the response - let's put all this behind us. --hippo43 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes i agree i will contact User:Kuru(Monkeymanman (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC))