User talk:Monty845/Archive 1

"Free" video links are still forbidden
Here's the relevant passage from Spam: ''Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product is not allowed.... A video is a spamming video if: ...
 * It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links....
 * It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site....'' -- Orange Mike 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Links/Ref to www.groomgroove.com
i'm not sure why you are removing my post to best man. I'm getting married, and I thought this was a good reference - not only the article I cite but the groomgroove website in general. It's the only one out there! give over!
 * I was removing it because it appeared to be link spam and was coming from an IP user, the linked site does not appear to pass WP:EL and there are issues about citation WP:REF reliability WP:RS. As a result I concluded it was spam. If it was a good faith inclusion I appolgize. Monty845 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Davesmith33
Good point, his repeated addition of the protection template and removal of other user's warnings although illogical and probably disruptive don't seem to fall under the current vandalism criteria. I'll let other, more experienced admins have a look at this in the block review. TimVickers 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatening of block for taking back contributions
I started a discussion on the "Club Car" article, and never got a response, and it was retagged after I "Wikified" it or whatever that is, and the tag reappeared. I edited it down the the very basic info. I created the Yamaha Golf Car article and it was butchered by tags, so I thought I would take my contributions back as I don't feel this place is fit for them. I get a block threat for taking my work back. Real nice.......

NO NO NO E-Z-GO! 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The prefered method of removing content is threw the deletion process. Blanking of pages out of frustration is never the solution. (though blanking is approriate for copyright violations/liable/etc) Monty845 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:69.132.199.100
I saw your comments on this page. In general, you are right that in general removal of warnings from talkpages is not strictly prohibited, although it is often discouraged and IP users are sometimes given lesser leeway than registered contributors in this regard. There are some specific concerns dealing with this particular userpage, but they are not relevant to the general principle. Newyorkbrad 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page warnings
Just to let you know I replied on my talk page - I'm still unsure on etiquette about posts. ...adam... ( talk &bull;  contributions ) 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of your approach of replying on the same page as the message, though many users respond on the person's talk page. Monty845 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing
I'm going to modify your posting on HD DVD encryption key controversy because it is editorializing too much and navelgazing at Wikiepdia politics. Just a forewarning, and also to discuss the changes. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-references
Per Avoid self-references, we should avoid referring to our own actions in articlespace, until there is a meaningful length of time for sources to potentially report on the issue and be cited. At no time should we be using links to Wikipedia: or Talk: space to cite a fact. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD
Figured you might be interested in User_talk:Bastique in your discussions with Administrators. 142.68.40.44 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Ridgeway
During your persicution (in the lightest sence) of DBottino with the Berwick Academy page, you did some reasearch on Mr. Ridgeway's supposed death. I have to say that was a pointless waste of your time. It was just a small joke gone crazy, and we were going to change it anywaze. Also i had tried to tell you before that Mr. Ridgeway was not dead so you didn't get involved to much, but i couldn't reach you in time.

Mathmagician11

Image:Broomball ball.jpg
Hello, Monty845. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Broomball ball.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Monty845. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 19:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Assange
Don't take my message at Assange the wrong way about feeding trolls, if you spend time trying to change someone's mind, it just sucks up your time, and your time is too valuable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SWTOR
Thanks for your efforts to keep the SW:TOR article free of vandalism. Hope it works. Eleanorjlh (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict
I tried to reconcile the article per WP:Claim and WP:Said but you rejected it. I respect your decision, and request that the other claim be made similar in that case. So, I have made the other assertion as WP:Claim as well.98.225.193.150 (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not a regular at that page. Monty 845 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding LGBT project to GNAA talk
Per 2 reasons:
 * Are you gay? ...
 * Categories: Gay men's organizations, LGBT in the Americas. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ber Hollywood
Thanks for Helping to save the Wikipedia Article Johnny de Brest, becuase I feel mobbed by Scientolgy, who try - after they attacked Johnny de Brest in Los Angeels 2002 to suppress any Information about him, several Sabotage.--BergHollywood (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing you can do if want to protect the article from deletion is to find sources that establish his notability (the term on wikipedia for whether a person is Important). In other words, magazine or newspaper stories that talk about HIM not just some of his work. Find sources that help prove he is important enough to justify an article, and either add them to the article, or provide links at the AFD deletion discussion. You can also check WP:BIO for details about how notability is considered. Monty 845 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

keep
I see that the 2nd nomination (this is the third) was speedy keep by a non administrator. You may do the same. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to withdraw your AFD nomination, just say so in the AFD, and someone should close it shortly, as I've already commented in it, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. Monty  845  03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't because I think if I withdraw it, then it is a keep so I can't decide on it myself. Besides, I did it as a favor for the person who blanked it out.  Rather than arguing, I just let everyone decide by the regular process.  If I did the submission wrong, say, like I didn't follow a minor instruction, please correct it for me.  It does look like the others so I probably did it right. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without getting in to whether you should have listed them, the technical aspects of the listing seem correct. (I did not check to see if you have notified significant contributors to the articles, if you haven't you may want to if the AFD is going to keep going) Monty  845  03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Artuir mac Áedán article
Hello Monty845, I didn't know exactly were I could talk about my article review, so I choose your talk page. I apologize for the intrusion.

I read the reasons my article was not accepted and I rewrote it using my own words, thus I got more distant from the source I supported my research. I organized my article following my source, and because I haven't time to fully write it, I ended repeating it at almost all the article. The article still structured following the source, but is now written by myself. I hope it can be accepted now.

thank you, Galdaran (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is generally my practice to reply on the talk page the first message was left on, in this case I decided to reply on yours. Monty  845  06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry...
It was not my intent to vandalize anything. I'll be more careful in the future.64.30.108.159 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, just be more careful in the future, I'm sure you can imagine how such changes are a problem. Enjoy your editing.  Monty  845  03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Wally Schirra
Your anti-vandalism program is saying that battle cruiser is the correct ship type for the Alaska class cruiser, when it is clearly designated a large cruiser, hence the CB classification, which is the official United States Navy classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.122.21 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, actually that was me doing it manually through the program, I was under the mistaken impression that battle cruiser was the commonly accepted term for the ship type, but after checking the articles, you are right. The ships were originally designated 'large cruiser' and the battle cruiser designation is a more modern construct, as mentioned on one of the references on the class of ship "some modern historians argue that the class should really be classified as battlecruisers". Sorry for reverting your edit, and keep up the good editing. Monty  845  18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation
On the behalf of about four hundred immature dolts, I would like to apologize for vandalizing multiple pages.I didn't do it. This computer is a public domain at a school, so I can't really do all that much to stop it. Just letting you know so that you don't think poorly of this IP. - A Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.88.244 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Talk:Wicked_problem User talk:209.255.78.138 comment.
RE: Talk:Wicked_problem Why, they were edits to my own Talk words? OK, never mind. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on talk page of IP, was a mistake on my part. Monty  845  19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Bad Man
I re-added the A7 CSD, keeping your PROD in place. This article has been created three times from different accounts and consistently deleted, lacking indication of importance or significance. A large number of views is not indicative of significance or importance. It is also not a reflection of policy or guidelines. While I appreciate your initiative, when met with subjective analysis, please contact the editor that placed the initial deletion tag. There may be issues regarding the article and/or subject of which you may not be aware. Collaboration helps to identify these issues. You should also check article/deletion history to help identify any possible issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that a claim that the channel has received 13 Million views is sufficient to be considered has having indicated "why its subject is important or significant". This article has never been deleted following a deletion discussion, and all the past deletions are for A7. It remains my assessment that the article passes the very low standard to survive an A7. It is doubtful that the article would survive an AFD debate, but I don't think that is dispositive when it comes to a CSD A7. Likewise, that the article has previously been deleted A7 should not prejudice the article as a delete after discussion would have. I will leave your CSD intact so that another person can make the determination, but I believe policy to be on my side here, and that a speedy delete is not approriate. Monty  845  20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's Johnny-come-lately: I have removed the tag, for reasons given above which I do believe are credible--13 million is a lot. If this needs to be salted, it can be done so after an AfD review. Given that this is certainly not obvious vandalism, I think AfD is the way to go if this is to be deleted, though I won't remove the PROD. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if anyone wants to kill my prod to go straight to AFD so that a discussion can occur, and any subsequent recreations can be deleted G4 or Salted. Monty  845  20:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better choice would have been for me to simply send the article for discussion. It didn't appear controversial or even borderline until the PROD was placed. Four different people have previously reviewed the article and determined that it qualified for deletion according to the A7 criteria. After the third recreation, another editor shares a different view and discredits the assessments of the others, followed by placing a PROD. 13 million views may be a lot to one person and not to another. It's all relative. I think the subjective nature of significance and importance is one of the issues that spur new editors to recreate articles numerous times following subsequent deletions and more creations. There's always a hope that someone else will come along and interpret the guidelines differently, thereby saving the article from deletion, if only temporarily. I sense the creator of the article is somewhat getting jerked around a bit. If s/he has a sense of humor, he may be getting quite a chuckle (I know I am). With all due respect, I think it's unfortunate that the editor has received a conflicting message. For this reason, I'm not going to remove the PROD. At this point, the need for consistency overrides. Let's just wait for the PROD to end it's run. If it's not removed, it's all good. If it is removed, we'll be back where we started. It's the nature of the beast. BTW, I removed the Ambassador template I had inadvertently placed above. I wrote my comment above in another window and evidently picked up some extra text. I also intended to place the comment on my own talk page. I think I ended up going to sleep shortly thereafter. Much needed sleep. Thank you, Drmies for popping in with a third eye. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  15:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The mixed messages thing is a valid point, and maybe I should have gone straight to an AFD instead of replacing with a prod. As for the assessments of the other users and admins who determined it met the criteria for A7, as far as I know, there is no good way for me to determine if the deleted versions were the same or had even less of an assertion of notability. Monty  845  17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Another admin came by and made the A7 deletion. The creator came by earlier before deletion and removed the PROD as representative of actions made for the previous articles. The PROD was then weirdly replaced by another admin, then later A7 deleted by yet another admin. Doesn't say too much about the credibility of the deletion process here. If you catch the next creation, I would recommend an AFD discussion, and if deleted, recommend a shaking of salt.  Cind. amuse  11:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talkpage! Gscshoyru (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just returning the favor. Monty  845  19:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Faith47
Hi. I would be interested to know how you think that one short interview in a blog satisfies any of the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. While the original CSD was certainly debatable, criteria are judged much more stringently in an AfD. One weak assertion of possible notability simply isn't enough. Taroaldo (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied in detail at the AFD regarding the notability issue, I will just mention here that I think the article clearly has a strong enough claim of notability that A7 is not applicable regardless of its merits under the stricter notability guidelines. Monty  845  00:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

John Gioia
It keeps getting proded, what can I do?71.142.74.66 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment into the article advising people to stop prodding it, I do not know if it will be effective, but I will monitor the article for any additional prods. Also, leaving you a welcome message on your talk page. Monty  845  05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dude, I have also added some work to it so it looks nicer.71.142.74.66 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Grant Humes AfD
Hello User:Monty845! Thanks for getting in touch with me on this subject. Despite my experience on the site, I'm not very skilled at deletion templates, so thanks for clarifying.

My opinion on this issue, as with other articles on political candidates who aren't already notable for other things, comes from Wikipedia:Notability where it says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The sources for the article are from the Liberal Party and Humes' own website, and therefore are not independent of the article's subject. If Mr. Humes wins in Durham, then of course we'll create an article, but for now, he doesn't fit the notability criteria.

Bkissin (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the article in its current form doesn't meet the regular notability guidelines, though I would not be surprised if you ended up needing to take it to WP:AFD for a final disposition. But you never know, good luck on your prod. Monty  845  20:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

keep
I see that the 2nd nomination (this is the third) was speedy keep by a non administrator. You may do the same. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to withdraw your AFD nomination, just say so in the AFD, and someone should close it shortly, as I've already commented in it, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so. Monty  845  03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't because I think if I withdraw it, then it is a keep so I can't decide on it myself. Besides, I did it as a favor for the person who blanked it out.  Rather than arguing, I just let everyone decide by the regular process.  If I did the submission wrong, say, like I didn't follow a minor instruction, please correct it for me.  It does look like the others so I probably did it right. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without getting in to whether you should have listed them, the technical aspects of the listing seem correct. (I did not check to see if you have notified significant contributors to the articles, if you haven't you may want to if the AFD is going to keep going) Monty  845  03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Artuir mac Áedán article
Hello Monty845, I didn't know exactly were I could talk about my article review, so I choose your talk page. I apologize for the intrusion.

I read the reasons my article was not accepted and I rewrote it using my own words, thus I got more distant from the source I supported my research. I organized my article following my source, and because I haven't time to fully write it, I ended repeating it at almost all the article. The article still structured following the source, but is now written by myself. I hope it can be accepted now.

thank you, Galdaran (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is generally my practice to reply on the talk page the first message was left on, in this case I decided to reply on yours. Monty  845  06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry...
It was not my intent to vandalize anything. I'll be more careful in the future.64.30.108.159 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, just be more careful in the future, I'm sure you can imagine how such changes are a problem. Enjoy your editing.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Wally Schirra
Your anti-vandalism program is saying that battle cruiser is the correct ship type for the Alaska class cruiser, when it is clearly designated a large cruiser, hence the CB classification, which is the official United States Navy classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.122.21 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, actually that was me doing it manually through the program, I was under the mistaken impression that battle cruiser was the commonly accepted term for the ship type, but after checking the articles, you are right. The ships were originally designated 'large cruiser' and the battle cruiser designation is a more modern construct, as mentioned on one of the references on the class of ship "some modern historians argue that the class should really be classified as battlecruisers". Sorry for reverting your edit, and keep up the good editing. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation
On the behalf of about four hundred immature dolts, I would like to apologize for vandalizing multiple pages.I didn't do it. This computer is a public domain at a school, so I can't really do all that much to stop it. Just letting you know so that you don't think poorly of this IP. - A Student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.88.244 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Talk:Wicked_problem User talk:209.255.78.138 comment.
RE: Talk:Wicked_problem Why, they were edits to my own Talk words? OK, never mind. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded on talk page of IP, was a mistake on my part. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Bad Man
I re-added the A7 CSD, keeping your PROD in place. This article has been created three times from different accounts and consistently deleted, lacking indication of importance or significance. A large number of views is not indicative of significance or importance. It is also not a reflection of policy or guidelines. While I appreciate your initiative, when met with subjective analysis, please contact the editor that placed the initial deletion tag. There may be issues regarding the article and/or subject of which you may not be aware. Collaboration helps to identify these issues. You should also check article/deletion history to help identify any possible issues. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  20:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that a claim that the channel has received 13 Million views is sufficient to be considered has having indicated "why its subject is important or significant". This article has never been deleted following a deletion discussion, and all the past deletions are for A7. It remains my assessment that the article passes the very low standard to survive an A7. It is doubtful that the article would survive an AFD debate, but I don't think that is dispositive when it comes to a CSD A7. Likewise, that the article has previously been deleted A7 should not prejudice the article as a delete after discussion would have. I will leave your CSD intact so that another person can make the determination, but I believe policy to be on my side here, and that a speedy delete is not approriate. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's Johnny-come-lately: I have removed the tag, for reasons given above which I do believe are credible--13 million is a lot. If this needs to be salted, it can be done so after an AfD review. Given that this is certainly not obvious vandalism, I think AfD is the way to go if this is to be deleted, though I won't remove the PROD. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if anyone wants to kill my prod to go straight to AFD so that a discussion can occur, and any subsequent recreations can be deleted G4 or Salted. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better choice would have been for me to simply send the article for discussion. It didn't appear controversial or even borderline until the PROD was placed. Four different people have previously reviewed the article and determined that it qualified for deletion according to the A7 criteria. After the third recreation, another editor shares a different view and discredits the assessments of the others, followed by placing a PROD. 13 million views may be a lot to one person and not to another. It's all relative. I think the subjective nature of significance and importance is one of the issues that spur new editors to recreate articles numerous times following subsequent deletions and more creations. There's always a hope that someone else will come along and interpret the guidelines differently, thereby saving the article from deletion, if only temporarily. I sense the creator of the article is somewhat getting jerked around a bit. If s/he has a sense of humor, he may be getting quite a chuckle (I know I am). With all due respect, I think it's unfortunate that the editor has received a conflicting message. For this reason, I'm not going to remove the PROD. At this point, the need for consistency overrides. Let's just wait for the PROD to end it's run. If it's not removed, it's all good. If it is removed, we'll be back where we started. It's the nature of the beast. BTW, I removed the Ambassador template I had inadvertently placed above. I wrote my comment above in another window and evidently picked up some extra text. I also intended to place the comment on my own talk page. I think I ended up going to sleep shortly thereafter. Much needed sleep. Thank you, Drmies for popping in with a third eye. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  15:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The mixed messages thing is a valid point, and maybe I should have gone straight to an AFD instead of replacing with a prod. As for the assessments of the other users and admins who determined it met the criteria for A7, as far as I know, there is no good way for me to determine if the deleted versions were the same or had even less of an assertion of notability. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Another admin came by and made the A7 deletion. The creator came by earlier before deletion and removed the PROD as representative of actions made for the previous articles. The PROD was then weirdly replaced by another admin, then later A7 deleted by yet another admin. Doesn't say too much about the credibility of the deletion process here. If you catch the next creation, I would recommend an AFD discussion, and if deleted, recommend a shaking of salt.  Cind. amuse  11:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talkpage! Gscshoyru (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just returning the favor. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Faith47
Hi. I would be interested to know how you think that one short interview in a blog satisfies any of the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. While the original CSD was certainly debatable, criteria are judged much more stringently in an AfD. One weak assertion of possible notability simply isn't enough. Taroaldo (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied in detail at the AFD regarding the notability issue, I will just mention here that I think the article clearly has a strong enough claim of notability that A7 is not applicable regardless of its merits under the stricter notability guidelines. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

John Gioia
It keeps getting proded, what can I do?71.142.74.66 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment into the article advising people to stop prodding it, I do not know if it will be effective, but I will monitor the article for any additional prods. Also, leaving you a welcome message on your talk page. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  05:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dude, I have also added some work to it so it looks nicer.71.142.74.66 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Grant Humes AfD
Hello User:Monty845! Thanks for getting in touch with me on this subject. Despite my experience on the site, I'm not very skilled at deletion templates, so thanks for clarifying.

My opinion on this issue, as with other articles on political candidates who aren't already notable for other things, comes from Wikipedia:Notability where it says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The sources for the article are from the Liberal Party and Humes' own website, and therefore are not independent of the article's subject. If Mr. Humes wins in Durham, then of course we'll create an article, but for now, he doesn't fit the notability criteria.

Bkissin (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the article in its current form doesn't meet the regular notability guidelines, though I would not be surprised if you ended up needing to take it to WP:AFD for a final disposition. But you never know, good luck on your prod. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated comment by IP
Thank you for informing me of my wrongdoings. I am sorry, i am just obessed with feces in places that it shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.185.35 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please comment on my talk page. Turning (The Daily Caller is a political journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on original reporting and breaking news, ) into (The Daily Caller is a yellow journalism website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politics, original reporting, breaking news, neoconservative ideology, and YouTube videos,) with no sourcing is not an edit war action. It is mere vandalism. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unambiguous use of multiple anonymous accounts to edit an article is wrong. I cannot believe that you see nothing wrong with it! Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not seem unambiguous that the current IP you are edit warring is the same as the others. Likely it is, but I don't think the evidence is overwhelming. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sex/Absurd for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sex/Absurd 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/Sex/Absurd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.  role <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never got one of those for just tagging an article with a notability concern, I commend you on the thoroughness of your AFD notifying. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I aim to please. :-) --  role <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:#9ACD32">player 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page :) Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipint for YOU
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Wikipedian2 (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your help on AfC! Wikipedian2 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:CalendarBarreto.jpg
The watermark shows that it's a blatant copyvio, so I've deleted it; thank you for pointing out the watermark. In the future, please tag it as a blatant copyvio with db-f9 or db-g12, so that admins don't get confused. The tag you used is only for cases in which the uploader doesn't claim to be the author. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Child Rights Information Network
Hi Monty,

It seems you have rejected edits that we made to the page on our organization, the Child Rights Information Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Rights_Information_Network) because of concerns of copyright violation. The changes we made to page were to correct misinformation, we believe as a result of vandalism, that wrongly identified CRIN as following a conservative Christian ideology. As you can see from our website (http://crin.org/about/index.asp), we do not have a religious affiliation and do not advocate on such matters; hence, the changes we made were to correct the erroneous information supplied in bad faith by a previous editor. The language we have now inserted is taken directly from our Mission Statement (again available on our "About Us" page: http://crin.org/about/index.asp), and as the copyright holder, we have fully authorized its use.

We certainly appreciate your efforts to combat vandalism, but in the future, would be grateful if you could refrain from rejecting changes made by our user names (veroyates and jennycrin) to our page.

Kind regards,

CRIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennycrin (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will ask someone with experience on copyright permission verification to take a look at it. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a question to the copyright questions board . Hopefully someone there will be able to sort out your situation. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Deen
I note that you removed the SD tag from the above. This article has been speedily deleted in the last day or so and now recreated. It is now appearing to be written by another editor who is in all liklihood a sockpuppet of the previous creator. Regards Paste  Let’s have a chat. 08:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All somewhat academic now as it has just been speedily deleted! Paste  Let’s have a chat. 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I still maintain it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but not much of a loss either. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

db-meta/sandbox
Hi Monty. I see you're testing out the AfD notification (which I supported) in the sandbox. I just thought you should be aware that db-meta has changed vastly recently, and the version you are testing it in is quite outdated. You might try copying the entire text of the current db-meta, replacing the text at the sandbox with that, then trying out your new code, so that you know what it might actually look like. Also note that the meta template provides different text when it is on pages that have existing talk pages, as opposed to those that don't so you might want to preview your changes on those two types of pages. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the changes, but your right, while I was figuring it would not likely be an issue in light of the change I want, better to be safe and test with the latest version. Thanks, Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback from RA0808
RA0808 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
For. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jordan Grand Prix
Could you please explain in what way I'm trying to push a POV on the Jordan GP article? It's a long-established consensus that we don't use flag icons or engine suppliers for defunct F1 teams. Notice how Brawn GP, Jaguar Racing, Minardi, Honda F1, Tyrrell, Brabham, Team Lotus, etc, don't have them? Please self-revert. JonChapple Talk 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I direct you to the part of your edit where you added "Also Scott Horner sucks balls!". Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again. JonChapple Talk 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, my apologies. I went and restored a vandalised page. Silly me. Will sort. JonChapple Talk 19:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Defence of Flaming Ferrari
I find it strange that you claim to be against vandalism yet defend a user who blatantly vandalises wikipedia and undoes others' hard work. Flaming Ferrari is a troll who should be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampyyy (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I offer no opinion on the editor in question, but your edits to that editors page and talk page were clear vandalism. Doesn't matter to me who you vandalized. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I get it now. It's ok when Flamimg Ferrari vandalises important public wikipedia entries but not ok when someone gives him the same treatment in his two-bit private page. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampyyy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I revert vandalism, retaliation is not a justification for vandalism. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note, I removed Greer Garson from the notable alumni section of King's College London, as this section is not intended to be a comprehensive list, but rather a snap shot of the College's most famous alumni past and present. There are lots of famous people, Greer Garson included, who do not feature in the main article, but who do appear in the more expansive List of King's College London alumni which includes somewhere in the region of 700 names. Clearly it is not possible to include all of these in the main College article. --Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be extra clear, I did not intend to suggest there was anything wrong with your edits at all, just that my reversion of the vandalism was unrelated. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for your assistance. BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay
Yay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.53.185 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when you do this?
I doubt that you meant to do this:. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I removed my warning on the talk page of the affected editor, and have left a note apologizing. Really not sure how I managed to make that mistake. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, glad I told you as I didn't know you'd warned the editor. It happens, we all make mistakes. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Monty
cmon man.. the guy makes himself wiki pages and has never been compared to eminem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.228.6 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the article is biased, or represents undue coverage, fix it (and be sure to explain what you are doing on the talk page). But what you did was outright vandalism. The overall merits of the article are irrelevant, don't vandalize it. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Test Page
You said it... I couldn't see any reason for its existence except as a test page. We are supposed to AGF, so I couldn't alter the CSD category to vandalism, could I? ;) Peridon (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (redirect help)
Hi Monty, Thanks for creating the Jose Rey de la Torre redirect page for me. I have created redirect pages myself before, but it's been so long, I'd forgotten how! So that's why I submitted the redirect request. The coding part is easy -- I just couldn't recall how to create a brand-new page, so I used the article wizard/request form, since I couldn't find any Help info on actually creating a new Wiki page. If I had more time today, I could probably find the info....at any rate, thanks! Joanne McAllister (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gene's
I agree that it looked kind of like it was from another source, but Google doesn't turn up anything other than the article itself. It's usually shoot first and ask questions later regarding potential copyright violations. I only wish that the poster had contacted me regarding a possible misunderstanding like this. If it isn't a copyvio, heck, I sure have no objections. Thanks for letting me know. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User 99.25.219.55
Hi. If I understand correctly, this IP-anon was not in fact claiming to have blocked Mystylplx. Rather, he/she is claiming that Mystylplx is a sock of, who was indef-blocked in 2008 (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Griot/Archive). I agree that his/her comment was very confusingly phrased; he/she posted an identical notice to my talk page, and I initially assumed it was vandalism and deleted it, and only after seeing your warning on the IP-anon's talk page did I finally figure out what was really going on. I put something on the IP-anon's talk page just now, explaining that if he/she believes Mystylplx is a sock, he/she needs to lodge his/her complaint (with evidence) at WP:SPI in order for any action to be taken on it. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, also there is a problem with that IP trying to out Mystylplx in a comment on the talk of another IP. All around a confusing situation. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Hi, thanks for your help. Your comprehension is quite right but not exactly. Not entire Honam region but only Mokpo in whole scale of South Korea. Then, would it be all right to ask this question on link you made? I will try. I really appreciate your help :) oh, Do I have to remove helpme ?? (plz make a reply at my page) Pju0353 (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I want! Thank you Is it possible to post the picture right on the page Mokpo? and can u tell me how can use such template? Pju0353 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks to your help, I can do what I want. But I am not sure how I can built up certain kinds of coordinates. well... I have to do my own study for this. Anyway have a nice day!! Pju0353 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I don't think so. I'm not accusing. I'm stating. 99.25.219.55 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I in fact misread your message when I reverted it, which is why I self reverted the removal. That said, I really don't think there is a very strong case for what your claiming, at least in regards to the banned sockmaster. Publicly accusing someone of being a sock is a serious allegation that should be supported by strong evidence, and I don't see any. Anyway, if your convinced they are a sock, file an SPI. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User:Mystylplx will be reported to the Wikipedia Support Team. 99.25.219.55 (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI mention
You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. --<span style="padding:0.1em 1em;background-color:blue;color:white;border:0.2em solid red;border-left:border:0.5em double red;font-weight:bold">Damiens .rf 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Smack me
The good thing is that this template should never hang around for more than a few minutes. The name, however, could be more felicitous, as I am considering changing the bot's name as well, I will bear this in mind. Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Query
Hi ... I was curious why you relisted Articles for deletion/Stary Olsa the same day it was first posted. Many thanks. You can respond here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, was an error on my part. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Karl 334 <sup style="color:red;"> ☞ TALK to ME ☜  18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor review
Hi. You might  find this helpful. You can also  leave a note on  its talk  page if you think it  can be improved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Com-Pear Inc., and variations
Hi. The page has been already deleted again. There's no need to  send a page like this to  AfD, it  will  continue to  be deleted until  it  is salted and the creator blocked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Oddbodz (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaron_Vargas
Hi. I declined the PROD on this page. Per WP:CRIME, when the perpetrator's "motivation for the crime ... is unusual". The source listed said "There's not much precedent for the Vargas case....there are no numbers parsing how many of those boys grow up to kill their abusers." I'd call that unusual. You could take to AfD if you want. I'm going to start editing it for NPOV and what not in the mean time.--v/r - TP 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see your point, but I'm not really convinced it is unusual enough to pass. However I will let it go,(without starting an AfD) and see if anyone else thinks it should be deleted, as I admit your position is not unreasonable. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'm not entirely convinced it merits an article either.  If you stumble over it in a week and it doesn't look much better, feel free to PROD it again or AfD it.--v/r - TP 20:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome Cookies
EOM Sammybenny (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Sammybenny

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor review
Hello, this is just to let you know that your editor review has been completed, several editors have provided their feedback on your editor review page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy editing and regards, Alpha Quadrant    talk    02:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

CBNG false positive report
This was replacing vandalism with vandalism, so it wasn't a false positive, and I assure you that with the content of both edits, and if I had Checkuser powers, the two editors in the diff provided would be the same people. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The moral: When reporting false positives, please scroll down. Thanks. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 June 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Eastern Montana
Thanks for the heads up. I've Prod'ed the article. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Advanced Direct page
Hi,

This new page is intended to state facts about our company, not sell our services. If you have suggestions on how to make it less "ambiguously advertising" then I would appreciate the feedback. It is my goal to include Advanced Direct among Wikipedia listings, not sell our services.

Thank you, Keatonunc (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Keatonunc
 * Basically, the problem is that the article has lots of positive verbiage, but doesn't really say much. Phrases like "ADI is a leading direct marketing solutions provider to regional and national firms across a broad spectrum of industries." are extremely promotional, but don't really tell the reader any encyclopedic information. It is also important to provide reliable sources to support the article. What you want to do is provide references to media coverage of the company, and try to limit what is in the article to things that have been covered by that media. Finally, be careful when it comes to conflicts of interest (link to policy) as it can be hard to right a neutral article about something your involved with. If your article is deleted, I would suggest submitting to WP:Articles for Creation next time, so that someone can review your article and point out any problems without it being subject to speedy deletion. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me also mention that it can be tricky to make it clear why the company is important without being overly promotional, but the best way is to keep it to the bare facts, and then show that the company is notable WP:CORP by using reliable sources WP:RS as references for those facts. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes
Yes, we were edit-conflicted on that stray HV reference! I enjoyed using Special:Nuke, don't get to do it often enough... I've asked for a checkuser at Sockpuppet investigations/LadyLashes to flush out any sleepers, but it's not the end of the world if the checkusers don't think it's warranted. The singer's name might be one to check for occasionally, though, to see whether it's being added to other articles. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 00:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Would you like the edit summary left by ED Drama removed from your page so non-admins can't see it?--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind, nothing worth RevDeling. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know if you change your mind :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Xbox Wonder Games
Does the above need to have a seperate AfD request submitted or will it be dealt with once Xbox Wonder has been dealt with.--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming you have no objection to my tacking it on to your AfD nomination, I think it can be dealt with as a bundled AfD nomination and deleted without a separate AfD. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD doesn't technically say I'm allowed to add a bundled nomination to a nomination started by someone else, but again, if you have no objection, I don't see why not. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So it would be best for me to submit a separate AfD then? For simplicitys sake? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you would prefer to, go for it, (we can remove my bundle nomination and I'll just comment on the new one) but I don't think it is strictly necessary. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to go with the bundle nomination (having re-read what you have put on the AfD) so long as it doesn't get you into trouble. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Worst case, someone objects and we do the separate nomination, but I doubt anyone will. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We will do that then :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

el 31 de agosto de 1979
Now I don't speak the language, but as I'm reading it: el 31 de agosto de 1979 say YOB is 1979 not 1977? I would change it myself, but for all I know it could be saying something about 2nd birthday ;-)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for point that out to me, I ran a google translate on it, and it is about when she was born, I just got distracted moving the reference to the infobox that I didn't realize it was still the wrong year. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure it was. But since you sounded like you knew what it was talking about, I wanted to confirm it before I acted (especially as this had already become somewhat of an issue.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles
Other Wikipedia articles are not accepted as sources per WP:CIRCULAR.  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reverting the unconstructive edit on my user page. El0i (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help out. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  04:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Punky Vandalism
Hello Monty845, Would it be possible to block user Punky Downs or 87.194.131.24. Looking at the talk pages, that ip address only contributes vandalism and the Punky Downs user name is probably the same individual trying to disguise themselves.ClintMalpaso (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so I can't block people, that said, User:Punky Downs is probably a vandalism only account, if they vandalize anymore they can probably be reported to WP:AIV. Generally the approach is to give editors 4 escalating warnings (unless they are doing something particularly bad), it informs them of policy, gives them a chance to stop, and avoids bothering admins to block people who are just making a couple bad edits and will stop on their own. The easiest thing to do is to just issue the escalating warnings each time the vandalize, if once properly warned the 4 times, they vandalize again, they will certainly be blocked, while if reported early as a vandalism only account, it really depends on which admins are patrolling AIV. Again, at this point, I would say it is not worth pursuing unless they use the account again. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for advice, didn't know the procedure.ClintMalpaso (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for posting the note on my talk page: due to an edit conflict I copy-pasted my reply in the wrong section (opposing something different!), if it weren't for your post I'd have not notice the error. --Squidonius (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Johnstone
You recently rejected Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoffrey Adams Dinwiddie Johnstone KCMG. I was able to find some references to confirm that Johnstone was once leader of the opposition in the Bahamas (and therefore automatically notable), so I added them to the article and moved it to Geoffrey Johnstone. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, glad to see it was fixed up. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rathika Sitsabaiesan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rathika Sitsabaiesan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:China
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:China. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Palazzo Foscari
Hello, I have not much time to spend on Wiki, so I am not that skilled: I hope I am posting this message to Monty845 in the right place! I live in Venice, Italy and I noted quite a confusion and missing entries in the list of the Venetian palaces. For instance: in real life, there are 3 buildings named Palazzo Foscari, not just one: the biggest one is commonly known as Ca' Foscari, but this is no reason why the entry Ca' Foscari palace or Ca' Foscari, should automatically redirect to Palazzo Foscari. As I'd like to build up the page of an alternative Palazzo Foscari, I guessed there was no other way than creating a disambiguation page for it - which I tried to do, sorry if I did not follow a procedure. Thank you for pointing this out, I opened the procedure description page but as a non-native English speaker it reads quite complicated to me :( so can I ask you here what can be done, and how? It seems so simple to me. I suggest to create a disambiguation page for Palazzo Foscari listing the existing entries: 1) Ca' Foscari Palace and 2) Ca' Foscari University of Venice with their same content, and the other Palazzo Foscari's. The disambiguation page will allow building up other pages, such as the missing one for the Palazzo Foscari listed in: []

The same disambiguation should be created in many other similar situations. (hope it is clear) many thanks. --Globe.explorer (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Globe.explorer
 * I have made the move request on your behalf at Talk:Palazzo_Foscari. Feel free to indicate your support there, and if you have anything additional you want to add feel free. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very kind of yours, appreciated it. --Globe.explorer (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very sorry to bother you again. I found out that my question was not clear. referring again to the same request which you kindly posted on my behalf: I only intended to request a Disambiguation page for Palazzo Foscari, not a change for the Ca' Foscari page (I am amazed by the amount of time spent on such talks by people without knowing what they are talking about, and ending up to nothing btw. can't they volunteer on something more productive?).

So, your advice again please: can I expect this time it is all right? many many thanks :) --Globe.explorer (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. Greatly appreciated. --   Luke    Talk 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Chamdo
--Hi! i really dont know why you change my contibution to this page, i really belive in neutral point of view, but, you delete and oly leave your version, think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.33.161.74 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion your edit was extremely biased. It is a farce to call the invasion of Tibet a liberation, and the rest of the edit was similarly biased, and was way out of line. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In point of view of Mainland China, is a liberation, but maybe in the west you dont think in the same way...think in war between Union and Confederation in the USA, or the civil war in the ex-Yugoslavia, or even the invasion of Irak, only the wesy think that is a war. Say only the point of view of one of the parts in in some degree offesive for all chinese. In internet and special in wikipedia, we all try to search all points of view, and all must be free to read, all views, and leave the decision to the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.33.161.74 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It of course comes down to your view of the justification for the conflict, but generally when liberation is used, it means that a territory which had been taken by force has been taken back. Here, a nation that had been independent for decades was conquered in a war of aggression. In that light, I think it is relatively fair to refer to it as an invasion. Similarly, increasing the size of the Tibetian force by 100 fold seems designed to make the Chinese victory seem greater, rather then bullying the grossly out numbered defenders. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * On a talk page, including here, you can always leave a comment by pressing the new section button at the top of the page, or by pressing the edit button next to any existing section (or even at the top of the page). Unfortunately, there is not enough information in your message to understand what I have said which you don't understand, or where I said it. If you would like me to explain something I've said, could you let me know what it is? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nedd Willard
What is a "still active topic ban"? In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor who made the nomination, for other reasons, had been placed under a topic ban on all BLP related edits, was still under the topic ban at the time the nomination was made, and the nomination fell within the scope of the ban. I called it a "still active topic ban" in an attempt to make it clear that the topic ban was still in force, and had not yet expired. It was an issue unique to that particular nominator, and I presume the ban has now expired in relation to the nominator as well. Hope that clarifies things. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

IP
Hi, I RevDel'd your IP. If you want it gone permanently, email User:Oversight. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I don't think Oversight is necessary. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pierre Lewis
Hi Monty you said on the page "Pierre Lewis" that Vandlism is not a reason for deletion, so I researched this and found "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject"

Which states Vandalism is a reason for deletion. Please could you clarify?

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.14.107 (talk)
 * I have replied at Talk:Pierre Lewis. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Capital
Hi Monty, I'm seeing hundreds of edits by Mbiama Assogo Roger removing the links to social capital. Is this vandalism?-- Miguel  AG (complain) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked them on their talk page, I can't think of a good reason for having done so. Pending a response, I would say either a mistake or vandalism. Will see if a response is forthcoming. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RiskVal
Hi there. I noticed you placed an   tag on this article. I removed it as I fail to see how a one-line company description and a 1-line, cited, award mention could *possibly* be construed as an advert... I am watching the page just in case it does indeed turn that way, as per many other company pages created by new users, but to tag it as such with only 2 lines present seems a bit bitey to me.  Nik the  stoned  14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a combination of the rather generic "provides solutions in risk management, pricing, and portfolio management", and the lack of substance, in my view it looks like an ad or directory listing. It really doesn't have an encyclopedic information, other then the one award they won. Not the strongest case for the tag, but I still think it is appropriate. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an hour-old WIP by a brand new user... In no way does it deserve an advert tag! (Yet, anyways...)  Nik the  stoned  15:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but they claim to have a full grasp on article guidelines with the use of newpage. To be consistent with that tag, we shouldn't consider them as a brand new user. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Eliza Swenson
Hi, just for clarification: I realised that the CSD A7 tag was somewhat overzealous, and was preparing to remove it; The Mark of the Beast had retagged it, and I had not reviewed the history. I thought it inappropriate to fail to restore the tag, as a result. Archaios (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Eliza Swenson
Is it your opinion that any actor in any movie (even ones which go direct to video) are notable enough that a db-bio isn't appropriate? You do realize that the original creator of the article has removed the db tag twice, and will, in all likelihood, remove the prod tag, which means this will all go to AfD anyway. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that it may end up at AfD, but I have had good luck with prods, often the creator will wander off and not remove the prod. If you would like to skip the prod, I wont mind if you replace my prod with an AfD. (and if the prod is challenged I will take it to AfD if someone doesn't beat me to it) As for the claim of importance, some of the films she was involved in have their own articles, so they are not entirely obscure, she is even mentioned in some sources that discuss the films, even if it isn't coverage sufficient for notability. Personally, I read claim of importance to be extremely broad, and I think the article passes it. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I predicted, the originator has removed your prod. I have now taken it to AfD.  Expect the afd tag to be removed once or twice.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you now appear to be correct on both counts, AfD tag was removed. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quidditch
excuse me. you reverted my change claiming it was bad. it most certainly was not vandalism. step off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.55.22 (talk)
 * My apologies, I hope you can understand that adding something like quidditch to the lists of sports played at a University without comment or reference looks very suspicious. In response to your comment, I have looked into the matter, and it appears to be a good faith edit. I'm not sure quidditch really qualifies as a club sport at Vassar, that isn't a vandalism issue, just a question of opinion that can be sorted out. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Σ  talk <sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex"> contribs  04:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:emjayfal
Why did you blank out my entire article, instead of deleting the copyright protected reviews. I put a lot of work into that article, and you just destroyed it without cause. And why is it that my corrected version is still sitting in the queu 40 hours later? Shouldn't it have priority over more recent pending articles?

AFC
Why did you blank out my entire article? Couldn't you have just deleted the reviews that were copyright protected? And why has it been 40 hours since anyone has reviewed my corrected article? Souldn't my article take priority over articles that have been in the queu for only a few minutes? Emjayfal (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC) emjayfal


 * First, you should know that as the submission was only blanked, you can access all of the content that was previously in the article from the article history. Second, it looked to me that most or all of the article was a copyright violation, When 80% of the article is a copyright violation where you can directly identify the source it was copied from, there is a strong suspicion that the remaining content may have similar issues, even if a source for them cannot be found. Even in the sections that could not be sourced to a specific copyright violation, there were indications that the other text was at least copy pasted from somewhere, combined with its tone, which reads like a review rather then an encyclopedic discussion of the topic, it was my conclusion that it was best to blank the whole thing as a copyvio. As for your complaint about the speed of AFC reviews, remember that we are all volunteers. It is up to individual reviewers to select the order in which they choose to review submissions, and often reviewers will handle several simple cases to reduce the queue size, rather then spend a substantial amount of time on a more difficult submission to review. There is currently a submission in the queue that has been there for 2 full weeks, yours has only been there a a day or two. There are 124 articles currently waiting review, so you will just have to be patient. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:AngeloADiamond
I see that a bot warned the editor, and you yourself quite patiently warned at least three tims not to remove the AFD template.... and the article history shows he chooses not to listen. I see that others have done so, and I have just myself returned the AFD template to the article on Eliza Swenson again. So far we have this errant newcomer removing the proposed deletion tag once and the AFD template 8 times, with the last incident being some few hours after your "final warning". Time for an admin to temp block to end the disruption until the AFD is concluded.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ANI filed requesting a temp block. Editor notified. Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Result was that the repeated removal was not considered disruptive enough for action, but he has been warned again by an admin.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my Talk Page. Vrenator (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Monty! I have a question.
I love the idea of userboxes, and i have a lot of them, but how do you make them without the code being really really long? Or how do you make them at all? Legolover26 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolover26 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question first, there is a pretty extensive guide to making userboxes available at Userboxes/Design and construct. What you would do if you don't want to clutter your userbox page with the code of any userboxes you make, is you create the userbox itself as a subpage in your userspace, and then you can transclude it into your main page like you do any other userbox. The userbox code may still be long, but it will be on the self contained page. If I haven't fully understood your question, feel free to explain it further. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Whorl
I added a description to the word Whorl and you removed it with one explanation about Wikipedia not being a collection of links. That's about 1/2 of what it is. In any case I've looked up a thousand things on Wikipedia and here are two examples, Coke and Angry Birds. What is the difference in those and what I added, a link to the Whorl! page? Favagames (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded at User talk:Favagames Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The revert...
Did not notice it had been closed. Thanks. -- Hinata  talk  17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Monty845/Twinkle log
Hi. How do you  do  this and get  it  to work? I have another look  at  Twinkle prefs and done what  I  thought  was required by  following  the instructions and  creating  User:Kudpung/PROD log and User:Kudpung/CSD log, but  I've obviously  misunderstood something. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The settings I have:
 * Under Proposed deletion (PROD)
 * Keep a log in userspace of all pages you tag for PROD (checked)
 * Keep the PROD userspace log at this user subpage: Twinkle log
 * Under Speedy deletion (CSD)
 * Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations (checked)
 * Keep the CSD userspace log at this user subpage: Twinkle log
 * Do not create a userspace log entry when tagging with these criteria: (only U1 checked)
 * Afaik, those are all the settings. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at User:Kudpung/twinkleoptions.js I don't see the PROD settings. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter, but I didn't create the log page, Twinkle did. Doubt it matters, but that is the only other difference I see. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response :) I'll try it out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Giovanni Antonio Emanueli
Please read Talk:Sebastiano De Albertis, thank you. --M.casanova (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Articles for creation/Environmental Systems Design, Inc.. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street poster
This image I uploaded is indeed the original poster for the Occupy Wall Street event. I was first created and published by Adbusters magazine, and has been widely distributed ever since. It is not an image of my creation. If there is a way for me to modify the image or its description as to prevent it from being deleted, please let me know. —Scoutstr295 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Testing templates


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Testing templates, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style="border:solid 1px #f69a9a;background:#f9f9c9;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:0.5em;width:20em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;margin-left: 1.5em;width: 90%;"> You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. An automated review of your submission has been completed, and revealed serious problems which will likely cause your submission to be declined. has not been declined yet, but this warning is to inform you that it will be declined within an hour if no changes are made to it. Don't worry, if your submission is declined you are always welcome to resubmit it after addressing its problems. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! <span style="font-family: Courier, monospace;letter-spacing:5px;background:#000000;color:#00FF00;padding-left:5px;">Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Blanking redirect at Travis d'Arnaud
I blanked the page in efforts to move a different, incorrectly named page to this location. The subject's name is 'Travis d'Arnaud', and yet the article based on him is very incorrectly labeled 'Travis D' Arnaud'. If you could make the move for me, it would be greatly appreciated. The article can be found here: Travis D' Arnaud and the new location to which I want to move the article can be found here: Travis d'Arnaud. I feel the subject (Travis d'Arnaud) should have his own page, as other minor league baseball players in the same class have their own pages (see: Anthony Gose, etc) Es0terick - (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I just ask for a speedy deletion instead? The page hasn't been active for months, nobody visits it, the information is outdated, numerous things on the page are erroneous and the name is gravely misspelled. I can post a new article over the redirect on the page with the correct spelling, and the older, misspelled page can be deleted. Es0terick (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, I have made the blank page (Travis d'Arnaud) a candidate for speedy deletion. The history of the page should not be a problem as the page doesn't have any history except for the redirect. Es0terick (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Marty for your gracious help on my first article on Wikipedia Paul Shoup Wjenning (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback II
-- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested
Looking for a review of the page Paul Shoup House. Can you help?

Your message at Requests for feedback
70.90.161.237 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Militant atheism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Alternative Outline Article Proposal
Your Alternative Outline Article Proposal seemed to have virtually unanimous support, but the person who made the original proposal has closed it. I feel that if you were to propose your alternative again, as a separate proposal, it would have a good chance of succeeding. My feeling is that, whether an article is called an "outline" or "list" or not, breaking an article up into major subtopics which are linked to separate standalone articles is a better solution than merging many standalone articles into a single humongous article, as per the Emergency Management example that I cited. LittleBen (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created a draft version of the guideline at Proposed Outline Guideline, I think the guideline as proposed at the above RFC needs to be fleshed out a bit before it would be ready for adoption. Any input you wish to provide would be appreciated. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have completely overhauled the draft, and have explained the changes and additions on the talk page. I hope you like it.  I look forward to your comments and further refinements. See you there. The Transhumanist 11:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Auschwitz command
It is a bad redirect title, so the page should be deleted.Hoops gza (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion. The page is NOT a list of personnel, it is a list of commanders, case closed.Hoops gza (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The redirect page DOES NOT represent a topic closely associated with the other page. They are two distinct topics, and the distinction is important to maintain. I don't know how much more clear I can make this.Hoops gza (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street poster
Actually we have two cases of fair use involved in this poster. See my comment. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hayley Vaughan Santos
The consensus did vote keep, and the article has three sources in the lead paragraph. However, have you read the arguments and found them reliable? If they are unreliable, would you consider relisting the debate? --Gh87 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my assessment, the consensus is too clearly in favor of keeping to justify a relist. The consensus swung heavily in favor of keep, and in the 6 days since the first clear argument that this character was particularly notable (relative to the other characters) was made, no one refuted it or added another delete opinion. Both sides had decent arguments, but the keep side had substantially more support, and I think extending the length of the discussion further would be unlikely to change that result. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

An invitation...
I cordially invite you to join the Outline Wikiproject. We could sure use your help! The Transhumanist 19:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Outline development
The leads were copied from corresponding articles (because that was quick and easy), with the intention to trim or condense them down as time allowed. The leads to the non-country outlines have been reduced to concise annotations presented in a primary list-format entry in the lead section. Reformatting of the country outline lead sections is underway. The Transhumanist 20:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi Monty845. You initiated Village pump (policy), which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Village pump (policy), it pertains to Request close and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with Huggle
Hello. I see you have Huggle. I wish to incorporate that into my account as well. There is only one problem, every time I try to log in with it, it keeps saying "Use of Huggle on this project requires rollback." Any ideas?— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You need the rollback permission to use huggle. Read up on the permission at Rollback feature and then make a request for it at Requests for permissions/Rollback. As huggle is the reason you want the permission, you will want to mention that in your request. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I submitted a request for Rollback.  I hope I get approved.  I don't see a reason why I shouldn't be.— cyberpower  ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was granted rollback rights.— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 10:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with huggle. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrections

 * I don't think I did anything with the references, all I did was give the article an assessment for WikiProject Articles for creation. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Re
Sorry, I'm not relisting any more now. (per the previous comments re other relists around same time) Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 11:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion question
I don't understand the speedy deletion nomination that you created for my username. Can you explain what it is about? Jeffhaff (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First, to clarify, I did not make a speedy deletion request for your username, the speedy deletion was for your user page. I determined that your user page had been created as an attack page by another user, I did not see a version in the history of your user page that appeared to be useful to the project, or that had anything you had wanted to say, it therefor met the criteria for deletion under WP:CSD G10, so I requested it be deleted. You are free to recreate your user page with any content you want so long as it is appropriate for a user page, see User pages. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I didn't even see that anything had been done to it. Thanks! Jeffhaff (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Pnina Tornai
Hi!My name is Katelyn, I am a student at Clemson University and for a project we are creating articles on wikipedia. I am creating a page on Pnina Tornai, a wedding dress designer. I noticed that you have an interest in Tim Gunn, who is also a designer! I was wondering if you could look at look at my page and give me some feedback? If you could that would be so helpful. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnina_Tornai Riffraff520 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)user:Riffraff520

Please comment on Talk:Falafel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falafel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Lost AfDs
Thanks For what it's worth, that's a product of Twinkle, but it's clearly my responsibility nonetheless. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on questions
I disagree with you putting the questions up for RfC. Ideally, we want to get large amounts of involvement from the people who care the most about the election, however in reality, those people would have edited the list while the last RfC was going on if they really wanted to. We opened the floodgates, and I really hope that what is now a small number of well thought out questions doesn't become a colossal mess.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I strongly support your desire to have a small number of well thought out questions, I disagree with the idea that they way to accomplish that is to keep the process for deciding on the questions obscure. Even when the main RFC was going, the questions page was relatively obscure and not particularly advertised. With an RFC on the questions, it will make it harder for anyone to argue later that the questions were unfair or that they did not have an opportunity to participate in the creation. I think the best approach to keeping the question set manageable is to challenge/discuss when people add extraneous questions. Questions that are challenged, and don't have a clear consensus for inclusion can just be asked as individual questions later. If you really think the RFC is harmful, I wont stop you if you want to remove the tag, but I think it will reduce the perceived legitimacy of the general questions. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence
Category talk:Anti-abortion violence was reopened after a review at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228. I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26 to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your meticulous review of the AfD. That you caught the book sources nuance, something I missed, signals that you carefully considered each comment at the AfD. I have left you a reply at the DRV. Goodvac (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI post
Hammersoft isn't an admin, btw. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, while I did at one point know that, for some reason I keep thinking they are an admin. I have corrected my statement accordingly. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Voter guide
BTW, that's Risker with the neutral, not SilkTork. That's a really good idea! It's good to get an overall summary. --Rschen7754 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for letting me know. I thought it would be interesting to see the overall levels of support from the guide writers, and I look forward to being able to compare the guide writer support to the voting outcome once the election is over to see how representative/influential it turns out to be. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Monty845, thanks very much for the summary of the other voters guides. I find it very useful and agree that it will be helpful after the vote too. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 15:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yummy!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

220.101.30  talk \edits (aka 220.101) has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank You!
I was about to slowly click one out myself with the on-screen keyboard when I saw yours was already up and running! (I don't have a keyboard now) - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have started it sooner, but I was holding out hope a quick consensus could be arrived at in the unstructured discussion. But it didn't seem to be developing that way. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)