User talk:Monotonehell

Old talk archived
here

Why did you delete "unhelpful comments" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch?
You deleted two comments in your edit of 10:35, 6 May 2007. While these comments may not have been helpful, they didn't do any harm except to the author's reputation. If someone wants to put embarrass himself in a talk page, it's not up to you or me to cover their tracks for them. Please consider restoring the edit. Dfpc 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored both comments (one was mine). Monotonehell also semi-apologized in my talk page, questioning my use of WP:CENSOR. I do not want a storm in a tea cup so I responded:


 * "I am glad you see how you over-reacted. It doesn't explain my apparent over reaction. Even?"


 * --Cerejota 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning messages
I'm not entirely sure what point there is leaving messages fourteen hours after it's been discussed on the talk page and whatever "edit warring" there was has stopped... Shimgray | talk | 19:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was sorted out well before you left your messages. Thanks anyways   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead point was "In the future..." as admins you should know better. Having bits pop in and out of existence on the main page is not a good look. --Monotonehell 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Initials
That was random >:) Simply south 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack
Hi, I removed the merger tag. Please see the article's talk. Bondkaka 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AoC
Cheers, mate.

I remain convinced this is the best alternative. Sure I live not only in Latin America but in Central America (Honduras) but I do believe this is for the best of the encyclopedia (if I could have modified the map I would have but I have limited image skills, see, SqueakBox 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disneyland
Thanks for your clean-up and edits recently on Disneyland. :) Tiggerjay 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section in Fifth dimension
Thanks for getting rid of the silly Trivia section in Fifth dimension. The stuff that was there was essentially completely irrelevant to the article itself. Good riddance, I say!&mdash;Tetracube 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ages of consent, different legal frameworks
Please read my comments in the Talk Page of Ages of consent in Latin America. This concept of an "unfettered" age of consent may be good in anglophone countries, but may become distorted in other legal frameworks, replacing the rule with the exceptions. Please read and reflect about this.Paulo Andrade 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GoatTracker - a unique character
While checking back to the article I'd worked on, I spotted that someone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.65.239.251) had wound BACK my last edit, resulting in text I had already corrected. Resulting changes from you (re-removal of links) - I apologise for this, but here's the newer version. Now the only problem I see about the article is, it's looking too sparse even with the changes you suggested (which I've included, again). I can't stuff a lot more content into there without seemingly crossing one line or another for suitability, so what do you suggest? I'm not the original GoatTracker author, and I don't know who 83.65.239.251 or why s/he likes my crappier writing so much. Anyhow, cheers.

Brickviking 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk main page now
Please don't remove the troll's comments, just answer his question. It'll save a lot of conspiracy theories on his behalf. --Monotonehell


 * I have answered. On his talk page. (as did you) And I answered it on the main page talk, first, but someone else removed it, so I was just following suit. Gscshoyru 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Could you update the Age of Consent map? It´s 15 for Argentina, wich is listed as "unknown". Thanks. --Damifb 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi the map's based on the verified information on the region specific pages. Argentina does have an entry but it is one of the jurisdictions that is "unclear or unverified", I don't know where you get the age of 15 from, that's none of the three ages listed in the discussion. --Monotonehell 14:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any discussion regarding Argentina... The Spanish Wiki says it's 13, see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edad_de_consentimiento

--Damifb 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on one of the subpages listed there Ages_of_consent_in_Latin_America The youngest AOC is 13 but there's Espurto laws to 18 and further complexities that can't be accurately pictured on a map.--Monotonehell 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ages of consent pages
It's easier to have the discussion in one place.

Give Peace a Chance
I agree with you that an offhand reference to a song in a Simpson's episode is not notable. But the use of any song in the soundtrack of a major motion picture is, I believe, worth noting in an article about that song. Renaming a trivia section doesn't fix it, but removing it outright doesn't fix it either. WP:TRIVIA says that the elements should be moved to the article. Until someone has time and energy to do that, leaving them in the list is better than trashing them. Capmango 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrmz well I guess we disagree on what constitutes notability then but not how to handle trivia sections. I always deal with trivia sections in one of two ways. If I don't have time to deal with it properly I put a trivia template on the section and come back later. If I do have the time I integrate any misplaced facts into the appropriate places in the article. Or if a useful list or lists can be made of related categorised items I create such lists (if they are LARGE then I consider forking a list article. With the trivia that remains, I look at it and decide whether it is pertinent or not. This I admit is largely subjective, but I declare all derivative works to be not notable. Instead any works that derive from other works should link BACKWARD to their source. Unless there's some verifiable impact that the derivative has had on society. For example, in the past almost ALL articles had a "In the Simpsons..." reference because the Simpsons have referenced near everything. There's been a concerted effort to remove all such references, they prove nothing.
 * In order to show that a particular work has had impact on society and culture we need a source that says so. Otherwise we border on original research or synthesis.
 * I left the items I considered notable. Are there any particular items that I removed that you consider worthy of salvage? --Monotonehell 07:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to me common sense says that if a notable film includes a notable song, then that fact is worth noting on the song's article (and vice versa). Or at the very least, if the movie is mentioned in the song's article, the mention shouldn't be removed.  As an example, the article for the song Kokomo mentions that it is featured in the movie Cocktail, even though all you hear is a 5-second clip of the song in the background (and the article does not reference an external source to back up the fact that the song is in the movie -- don't you think doing that would be overkill?).  The song Give Peace a Chance plays a much more prominent role in the movie Trial of Billy Jack.  I'll copy this to the article talk page in case others want to weigh in. Capmango 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I get more time I'll be improving the article, I tend to only get 10 minutes here and there. I've just spent a few minutes de-dot pointing a section. That gave me the opportunity to insert a couple of the more notable movies as examples in context. --Monotonehell 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Joy!


has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Marlith  T / C  04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator
I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andre (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I look forward to seeing your edits to Main Page components :) Grace notes T § 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers you two! --Monotonehell 08:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep our dialogue on the state of the Ages of consent in North America on my talk page as an example of how editors with sincere differences can build consensus through discussion. In a world beset by intemperance and incivility, I appreciate your efforts to engage in discussion.  Congratulations on your new mop & bucket and I look forward to your continued contributions.  If I recall correctly, I still owe you a cider.  As an aside, the Justin Berry article is again a trouble spot, if you'd like to muddy your boots.  Deletions, permanent deletions, IfD nominations, and now an RfC.  We're trying to hit every possible forum simultaneously, I think.  --Ssbohio 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Age of consent pages discussion header
I am having a couple of problems with the header that I hope you can clear up. The header says "For an example of a properly formatted article see the Ages of consent in Australia and Oceania." I feel this link should go to a dated version of the article, as it otherwise assumes that the article will remain "properly formatted" (and experience (ugh!) says otherwise). Similarly, the header states that it is based on "consensus*" leading to "* (The original age of consent formatting discussions began here )" linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Age_of_consent#The_Age_of_Consent_Clean_up. Currently, that leads to the top of the talk page. Presumably the consensus is archived, but I couldn't find it. Mdbrownmsw 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
They're talking about you! –Pomte 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Shame on them. Hope to see you around. And I hope you like [my edit summary. [[User:Prodego| Prodego ]] talk 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:AOCWorldMap.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AOCWorldMap.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive box
I am attempting to make a new archive box, in which there is no  parameter, and the only page still using the   parameter is one of your's. Is there any way possible to remove the  parameter from this box? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists of books portraying sexual attraction to children
Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days would be appreciated. You participated in earlier discussions of this question and related questions about that work. SocJan (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Csaw60.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Csaw60.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of GoatTracker
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is GoatTracker. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/GoatTracker. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back?
Good to see you're back, hopefully permanently (but not at the expense of your work contract)! Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate. I'll have to see if my next contract is as life sucking as the last one. Two years just went past, and I don't remember much happening. Go to work, come home, go to sleep, repeat. I did manage two weeks in Disneyland last September :D Also need to catch up on all the procedural changes and policies etc etc. There's loads more 'red tape' than when I first started with WP Monotonehell 09:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unprotecting Bitweaver from creation
Hi, would you mind unprotecting Bitweaver from creation? I have a page draft ready here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver. Thanks for your effort in advance.--Kozuch (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the late response I've absent for a while. I can't see any compelling references in your draft to non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources, and so will not recreate the page without consensus of other editors. Monotonehell 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

 * See also: Inactive administrators/2011

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. – xeno talk 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:AgesOfConsentKeyMap.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AgesOfConsentKeyMap.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well boy howdy
Well, that's some Wikibreak -- two and a half years and counting since your last edit. I hope you didn't choke on a herring or something, and that everything is going well for you. Herostratus (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christian Tessier


The article Christian Tessier has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Seemingly entirely non-notable and unimprovable actor article as my searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions at News for his characters, certainly nothing to suggest considerable improvement here.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister  talk  20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian Tessier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian Tessier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Christian Tessier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)