User talk:Spoonkymonkey/Archive

I would urge you to reconsider, but if you really do want to take the course: wait for the current block to expire in ~20 hours; archive your talkpage as you see fit; contact an admin listed here to request a block. Again, this is not the course I would recommend. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history

For conspiracy screwballs, my last edits to Warren Kinsella were in December, 2013, to clean up the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&type=revision&diff=586482579&oldid=586401834 Until recently, my last edit to Rachel Marsden was April 12, 2013 (six years ago), when I added material about her recent work: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Marsden&oldid=550004158 . I did post recently to say I believe she was likely a victim of sexual assault. I have always believed she showed symptoms of someone who had suffered abuse, and I found/find the publication of salacious material about her to be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the claim that so many people now make that sexual assault victims should be believed. I know there is an attack site on me on the Internet, but the supposed connections and the allegations are flat-out wrong. I welcome scrutiny of my edits. There are more than 2500 of them, mostly copy edits and re-writes, over the past 11 years. Feel free as well to do a check-user (which was done many years ago and debunked this accusation when it was first made). It's ironic that people trying to push this garbage into Wikipedia are fake accounts (as admitted on the site) and IP sockpuppets that are now being banned out of hand or blocked on Wikipedia. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


That's not what was said during the Mike Duffy trial. 2001:1970:5457:DF00:C5EF:FD18:F858:128E (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Now go away, sockpuppet. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google search: Mike Duffy and Spoonkymonkey: https://www.google.com/search?ei=xUuMXNe5BYPGjgTkj6qYDg&q=Mike+Duffy+Spoonkymonkey&oq=Mike+Duffy+Spoonkymonkey&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.20510.20510..23347...0.0..0.120.120.0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.F3nnwfDwlTo

David Akin and Kady O'Malley's inaccurate speculation seems to have fired up you trolls, who, irony of ironies, post under IPs and sock accounts, almost certainly because (a) you're banned or (b) you identity would be quite interesting to a number of people. All further comments from IPs, socks and trolls will be removed. But you can clearly see they're guesses. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome!

Hello, Spoonkymonkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope you find what you need.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, User:Compwhizii has helped format your page.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Thomas Shoyama has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is quite inaccurate and unfair. I started and wrote the Shoyama entry and asked for help on formatting. I did receive the help, for which I am grateful. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive it was proabably because comments like that should be asked on the talkpage as it disrupts the article.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be an article if I hadn't written one. I doubt this is a good way to attract talent to Wikipedia. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please remember to be civil on wikipedia. Also I think you have enough start on the page for you to expand. If you need help, please ask. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

If you right-click on a page in Firefox the 'View Page Info' option will tell you a fair amount about it, including the 'Modified' date. I think Internet Explorer lets you do a similar think by going to the 'File' menu, then 'Properties'. John Nevard (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for me to move up to Firefox.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removal

Hello, I was just wondering why you removed the photograph of Mike Duffy from his article? It's the only available photograph we have of him, and I don't see any reason for it's removal (short of a request by Mr. Duffy himself, if he provides a freely licensed alternative for us to use). Just curious as to whether there was a specific reason or not :) -- Editor at Large • talk 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life

I'm sorry to have declined (and removed) the speedy deletion tag you put on this article. I believe that the huge number of subscribers asserts notability; the 150 well-sourced references demonstrate that the topic is notable in a verifiable way, and its being "interesting" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. If you truly believe that this article ought to be deleted, I would suggest you take it to Articles for deletion -- although I believe it would pass AfD. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sicko. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraser Institute makes no bones about its conservatism or its opposition to Canada's medicare system. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it explicitly bill itself as "right-wing" or "anti-medicare"? If so, can you provide a link? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you if the Institute specifically bills itself as "right-wing" or "anti-medicare"? That page says that it "came to be known as a right-wing think tank", but not that this is a label it has chosen for itself, and it doesn't mention the word "medicare" at all. Does the Institute describe itself thus? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the crankiness. It happens. (Just make sure it doesn't become a habit.) As for the Institute, the issue is not whether they're "right-wing" or "anti-medicare". The issue is whether this wording constitutes an opinion, and whether it's relevant to that particular passage. Of course it's not meant as an insult. But putting aside the fact that the people on the other side of the political aisle can take it as such, the notion that they are "right-wing" or "anti-Medicare" is an opinion, and opinions are only permitted on WP if they're not only relevant, but attributed to cited sources. It is better to describe them using neutral language, and even then, only if it's relevant to the passage, and this is regardless of whether the person reminding you of this contributes "substantially" to the project. Even if someone whose work is mostly fact-tagging points this out, the issue is whether their point has merit. Thanks for responding. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mike Duffy

{{help}} We have some serious BLP violations happening here: Mike Duffy and an edit war is shaping up. Request page protect until Duffy's Senate appointment is out of the news cycle. (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protect asked for. In the meantime, try to set up a discussion on the talk page. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello re: Al Stewart re: Richard Grenville

Regarding Al Stewart, what mutiny are you refering to ? in regards to Lord Grenville. I undid your good faith effort then further specified Richard Grenville as the song specifies Spanish Main and sailor motifs. I hope that if you have a specific reference, you will share it with me. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Superior and Category:Volcanic areas of Canada

I have readded this category on the Lake Superior article because there IS volcanics at Lake Superior from volcanism of the Midcontinent Rift System. And it dosen't matter if there has not been active volcanism in the area for millions of years. What matters is the volcanics. I don't know if you are American or Canadian, but I suggest you learn more about the areas geology. Black Tusk (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All areas are originally vulcanic. The Lake Superior area has not been active since the Jurassic, at the very latest.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talk page. Black Tusk (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave

Hi.

I see on your userpage you said, "Spoonkymoney has left Wikipedia due to its leftist bias and its cabal system. Find another sucker, Jimbo."

I can relate to your reason - very, very much. I added true, well sourced info that was critical of Barack Obama to wikipedia, and it kept getting deleted. I know how you feel. Now, I am no longer allowed to edit any articles about Obama. I do think there is a liberal bias at wikipedia. However, the majority consensus was to not include the info that I added. I don't like that, but that's how it works around here.

That being said, there are other editors here who can relate to your frustration besides me. And there are plenty of other articles that you could contribute to that don't get censored.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've still been using Wikipedia once in a while, but now I overcome my urges and leave the typos, clunky writing and POV alone. The people who spend their time politicking on Wikipedia can use some of their energy to actually improving it. I'm done. The Wikipedia elite like Tony Sidaway simply play the rest of us as fools. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check here and see if you approve what I've done. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a list of scientists who no longer buy what IPCC is selling, add this guy: Andrew Weaver a climatologist who says the leadership of the IPCC has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body. "There's been some dangerous crossing of that line echoing the published sentiments of other top climate scientists in the U.S. and Europe this week". In Canada, he was the go-to guy for the IPCC side on TV panels. Now he's jumped the fence, wants IPCC overhauled, doubts the solidity of some of their science, and thinks IPCC's chief should go. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. You will get an unbelievably hostile reception unless you can demonstrate this man actually opposes the mainstream view, and I'm not convinced he does. It might be better to ask politely at IPCC whether you could insert a referenced section to the effect that a few/some/many climatologists now think it's not fit for purpose. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Spoonkymonkey! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 16 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Hugh Halliday - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I assume that you are aware, as you posted to the Requests for enforcement page, but here is handy link to the page describing the probation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree ring flaws to AGW

Hi SM - are the tree-ring problems documented anywhere? Do you think they warrant a new article or a new section of an existing article? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia talkpages are not a general forum for discussion and should not be used as a battleground

Please take more care in future to collaborate productively and civilly with your fellow volunteer editors, and use talkpages solely for discussion of improvements to the related article instead of for general discussion. In the following difference links, you violate the WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, or Civility policies, and show indications of WP:tendentious editing, which can become disruptive: [1], [2], [3] (this is the second time you reopened that discussion), [4], [5], [6], [7]. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe these are important issues that have a direct bearing in the tone and POV of the article, and I resent the implied threat of your note. I would like to know if you have sent similar notes to the True Believers.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lightfoot

Just wanted to say good job for keeping the rumored death (which turned out to be a hoax) off Gordon Lightfoot's page when it broke. — CIS (talk | stalk) 03:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I smelled a rat... Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Harvey (biologist)

Please do not replace the PROD template again on this article. If you still want it to be deleted, you may pursue WP:AFD, but putting the PROD template on the article again will be considered disruptive behavior. --After Midnight 0001 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi Spoonkymonkey,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.

Thanks! Aresj (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Don't worry if you feel you don't know much about Wikipedia governance. Your insights are interesting as well. Thanks. Aresj (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anataphrus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anataphrus, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.lakeneosho.org/More6.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

Please do not make such massive changed to sourced material without discussion and agreement from other editors. The version you are removing has been largely intact for well over a year and appears to reflect consensus. --Ckatzchatspy 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Party Favours

None of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion apply to this article, and there is an indication of importance (the author seems to be notable, and the book "won considerable attention"). I've added a notability template - if you still want to request deletion, you could start an AFD or propose to merge the article. Peter E. James (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Eight years later, it's gone. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted revert

Hi there,

you'll notice I undid your revert of some of my additions. See [8]. I'm not going to assume bad faith on your part, but the parts you removed are all well sourced, and to the best of my judgement, not contentious. The award exists. The Jeb Bush interview exists. The Chair exists. I noted your revert at the AfD discussion, too. Thank you and good night. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Piss off. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Nagata

This is just kind of a pet peeve of mine, not a really big deal, but the guide to deletion states: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." AFD is one of the first "behind the scenes" places many new user come to, and WP:BLP1E is not going to mean anything to them without context. In this case the term was not even linked, so a new user unfamiliar with shortcuts would have no basis for understanding and responding to your nomination. Just thought I'd mention that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you agree, always a pleasure to meet another civiil, consideate Wikipedian. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Nagata

Hi, Spoonkymonkey. It's a customary courtesy to inform the creator when nominating nominating an article for deletion in order to provide him or her the opportunity to address the nominator's concerns and improve the article as an alternative to deletion and to participate in the deletion discussion. Candidly, I had forgotten I created this article and am latterly more ambivalent about whether the subject merited one, but I still ought to have been afforded the opportunity to improve it and to make the case for its being kept. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. It really wan't an article, in my view, just a few lines of type. Your complaint is longer and more detailed than the article itself. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's more than nice: since it's a longstanding, near-universal custom that touches on Wikipedia's core value of civility (q.v.), it's what virtually every Wikipedian will expect of you. As there is no practical impediment to informing an article's creator that the article is up for deletion, there is never any excuse for not doing so -- except perhaps inexperience. But now that I've made you aware of this expectation, I trust I've saved you the embarrassment of repeating your error. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, you need to get out more. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind invitation is unexpected, but I'm afraid my social calendar is currently full.
On the other hand, have you considered whether you have the requisite temperament to work effectively in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia? Not everyone does. The signs so far, and not merely from this exchange, aren't terribly propitious. Fortunately the internet offers a nearly limitless number of alternative venues for supercilious snarkiness and tiresome headbutting. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just have no time for tiresome twits.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but if you can find the time to nominate others' work for deletion, you can find the time to leave the customary notifications. To do otherwise makes this appear as an attempt to slip something under the radar. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I spend all kinds of time fixing Wikipedia. I have donated hours and hours of my labour, free, to this, without a whit of thanks. All I hear is complaints. Wikipedia, I like. Wikipedians --no one in particular, of course -- are tiresome. This is MY talk page. Go whine somewhere else.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Menzies

I declined your speedy deletion request on David Menzies as the article is referenced and makes (fairly weak) claims that could arguably be counted as notable. Feel free to take it to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. --GraemeL (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mihailovich

Hi Spoonkymonkey, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination on Alex Mihailovich, as 'not notable is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. While it is a valid criteria for deletion via PROD and AfD, to be eligable for CSD there only has to be an indication of importance, being a corospondent for a notable TV show on a national television network is such an indication. If you still feel it should be deleted, feel free to nominate it via PROD or AfD. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wallace Wilson

The article Wallace Wilson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot verify this article's content. See discussion on talk page.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian parliament website maintains a database of all MPs and all Senators, past and present. There was no one named Wallace Wilson. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Pierre Bourque (journalist)

Hello Spoonkymonkey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pierre Bourque (journalist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No reason given. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Armstrong

Please stop removing the source. It's reliable, and is sufficient until a more extensive report is available. And it's certainly better than nothing. Cresix (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It IS nothing. It's second-hand and proves nothing.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British Broadcasting Corporation and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are now both reporting Neil Armstrong as dead. RIP. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Now you have something. You could have just as easily been wrong, as so many people were with Gordon Lightfoot and several other cases where Wikipedia was made to look stupid by over-eager, half-bright "editors." 

Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Armstrong

He's dead. [9] Please stop your unconstructive edits. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You were finally able to prove it. I went through a similar situation when the Internet buzzed with a hoax report that Gordon Lightfoot was dead. When Wikipedia says someone is dead, I want to see PROOF -- not a one-line story on an Australian web site quoting a US news agency. I want to see a solid report. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, what you want is the way it should be. Please forgive us. We forget that you are the Wikiboss. Cresix (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I want verifiable facts, not your rush to be first with news. Get a life. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong's demise *is* verifiable. Please stop leaving edit summaries like "(→‎Neil Armstrong: get a life, dickhead)" and be WP:CIVIL? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of arguing, why didn't you take that few seconds to fire up a Google News search and seek more sources? 76.14.240.12 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you people quit harassing me? At the time, I did google to see if there were verifiable sources and all I saw was the Australian piece saying NBC was reporting the death. There was no NBC story in line at that time. I had stopped Wikipedia from being embarrassed when people like you had wanted to report Gordon Lightfoot dead when the only source was a Canadian reporter tweeting what turned out to be an inaccurate rumor. Better to be careful than to jump the gun on someone's death. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

"reckless and stupid"
"get a life, dickhead"

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit coming here to attack me for trying to be careful.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Bourrie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gilman and Hingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lisa Kirbie

Hello Spoonkymonkey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lisa Kirbie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned...

...at the Help Desk, here, so you may wish to comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Spoonkymonkey. You have new messages at Talk:Warren_Kinsella.
Message added 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfred B Thompson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Great Escape and Sagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

Hello, Spoonkymonkey. You have new messages at Talk:Warren_Kinsella#Ignatieff_supporter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Tim Ball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Ball 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of vandalism

Accusing someone of vandalism when there is only an editorial disagreement is seen as a personal attack. See WP:NOT VANDALISM. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have written: Remove "fact" tags. Any decent history of the German collapse will verify this. Antony Beevor's

  • If your sources support the 2 million story, why don't you quote them? Which Beevor, which page? Recent German sources say rather 600 000. Even the German government foundation Flucht, Vertreibung, Versoehnung doesn't support the 2 million.
  • There was Flucht and Vertreibung, not only Vertreibung and not after the war but during and after the war. Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bacque

Could you take a look at this again? The version at [10] seems at least at first glance much betteer and certainly easier to understand. The current version seems to wander all over the place about Ambrose's opinions and I think gives them too much weight. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thunder Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warren Kinsella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • At the beginning of 2003, it was made public that Sophie was diagnosed with [[Meningioma|benign brain tumor], from which she has recovered.<ref>[http://www.nettyroyal.nl/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Nomination of Blacklock's Reporter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blacklock's Reporter 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacklock's Reporter 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Spoonkymonkey,

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

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

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

MfD nomination of User:Spoonkymonkey/Wallace Wilson

User:Spoonkymonkey/Wallace Wilson, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spoonkymonkey/Wallace Wilson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Spoonkymonkey/Wallace Wilson during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spoonkymonkey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isabel Vincent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saturday Night (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Spoonkymonkey. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Rachel Marsden, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bradv🍁 17:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This is a serious #metoo issue. Seems everyone believes women, except this one.

March 2019

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked for help on the talk page Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited on my

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spoonkymonkey reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result: ). Thank you. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I literally have no idea what Gamergate is. So if, by stating I believe a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted, you're warning me about engaging in a "gender-related controversy", you can just move on and take your trash with you. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for ignoring discussion and returning to removal of content without discussion after full protection of the article on the page Rachel Marsden, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spoonkymonkey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, my edits did take place after discussion. Second, you are 100% wrong about the arbcomm decision, which says undue derogatory material about her can be removed from the page by anyone. I suggest you read it. There is no reason whatsoever for this block. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You cannot make a standard unblock request. Read the block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Spoonkymonkey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. My edits conform to the arbitration decision, which allows anyone to remove anything that (a) violates BLP policy OR (b) is disportionately negative. My edits were made after a discussion on the talk page. A second editor suggested even more should be cut (the Jimmy Wales material -- see the edit summary on the article page. Complaint was made to arbitrator that I was the victim of harassment (which I have been for nearly two months by Toronto-area IPs), and the admin blocked me. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Procedural close. You are no longer blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]