User talk:Funky Monkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
 Start a new talk topic.


Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.


Archive
Archives
  1. Jan 2006 – June 2006

Contents

[edit] Uhm, just a bit confused here ...

Can I just ask about this edit by you? It appears to have been to someone else's post in a mediation case I'm involved in.

Of course I do not mind anyone watching a mediation case I'm involved in, or anything. It's just that you edited Carbonate's post, and I'd like to be sure that everything above Carbonate's signature (well, to the next dividing line) is indeed his writing, and his opinion.

Are you Carbonate? No offence intended, of course.

The edit seems harmless, since I read "synonomous" as a typo for synonymous, though it might well be a greek word in its own right ...

RandomP 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Cheers. Not the end of the world.--Crestville 12:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woops

[1]

I think you saw the swearing in the diff (especially being performed by an IP) and thought that the IP was performing vandalism, when in fact, the IP was actually reverting vandalism. No harm done, I've already reverted back. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

yeh, so now you get a vandalism warning! lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.210.97 (talk • contribs).

Not really you had vandalised 3 pages just prior to that edit. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand. I saw the previous comments and edits as well. As I said, no harm done. Just thought you should know. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing my spelling of "acquisition" on NetIQ and AttachmateWRQ. I'd just realized my mistake and came back to fix it, but you'd already done it. Thanks again! Tyrel Haveman 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd remixes

So, you are definitely sure of this issue. We should put this in a proper article, imho, or these remixes are mentioned somewhere?--Doktor Who 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert

Would you mind explaining which direction NEN is? You reverted my removal of the word from Charlemagne, Quebec ([2]). Orane (talk • cont.) 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Funky Monkey, thankyou so much for your comment on my user page. It means so much to me that there are people who think enough of me that they'd be wiling to do that. I will give your offer some thought. Thankyou. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

I have explained my edits in the talkpage.UberCryxic 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I am more than well aware of the three revert rule and have made no violations yet. Thanks for reminding me though.UberCryxic 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you told Sarah about a supposed violation of 3RR on my part. This is actually funny because just a few days ago another user falsely filed a 3RR report against me, which failed. Just so I don't have to go through that again, here's the 3RR rule: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period..." I really have only made two reverts (the third wasn't a real revert; it was including a sentence that I thought was appropriate).UberCryxic 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It also says, "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I'm not saying that you were being disruptive, but I do think you should be aware that 3RR is not as simple as having 3 reverts a day. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MJ

Hey Funky, I feel a bit out of the loop with regard to the MJ article. What is the consensus now? That no nicknames are to be included? I'm happy to have a word with the person, but I just want to make sure I have my facts straight! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. It didn't contain the nicknames, but I think it's very problematic. I do not think we need to be making comparisons to Elvis, The Beatles and Sinatra in the opening paragraph! And the reference, as far as I can tell, is an article about James Brown, not Michael Jackson. I didn't read the whole thing but I couldn't even see Jackson's name. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if it appears that I am taking it personally, then I want to apologize. I obviously did not intend any such thing. Regarding the source, I would say that it is the most respectable and prestigious in the entire article. I mean...it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page. Furthermore, it contains plenty of facts, so that's an odd coment on your part. Here are some facts:

Thriller topped the charts for nine months (37 weeks) and remained in Billboard’s album chart for more than two years (122 weeks). Jackson won eight Grammy Awards and seven American Music Awards for Thriller. In 1985, it was proclaimed the Best Selling Album of All Time by the Guinness Book of Records. As of July 2001, Thriller has sold 26 million copies in the U.S., making it the second best-selling album in history behind the Eagles’ Greatest Hits (27 million). Worldwide, Thriller has sold 51 million copies. Beyond the numbers, how important was Jackson’s record-shattering feat? As producer Quincy Jones told Time magazine, “Black music had to play second fiddle for a long time, but its spirit is the whole motor of pop. Michael has connected with every soul in the world.”

I eagerly await your comments. Sarah suggested that we should not be making comparisons to Elvis, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra, which I agree with. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is making them, and I would suppose they know more about it than we do.UberCryxic 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts are interesting, but I suppose what's confusing me is the "speculation" label. The people who made this statement presumably know a lot about how musicians are viewed by the musical community. As such it is reliable enough to be included in the article. If you want to just copy the statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page, then I'd be fine with it. Doing it for one sentence does not constitute a copyright violation.UberCryxic 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically what I'm getting at is that when you say "speculate," it's sort of like you're dismissing their views. But their views should be way more important than yours or mine. They are, after all, the people who put Michael Jackson in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why could they not do the same to you, and suggest that your claims that Michael Jackson cannot be compared (or should not be) to these other people are also speculation?UberCryxic 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's still opinion not facts"

Wikipedia is not supposed to document truth. We are supposed to make verifiable statements backed up by reliable sources. The statement is verifiable and comes from a very reliable source. I do not want to get philosophical, but in a sense "fact" is a label for a predominantly held view. As regards this topic, it is not necessarily one where you can have hard facts, particularly with issues about how people view him.UberCryxic 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's still a fundamental problem that you haven't addressed though. Your stance is also an opinion. Why should it receive greater weight than that of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?UberCryxic 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you think wikipedia isn't supposed to document truth, you are misled. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.

In fact, I am well within my bounds to include the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And also from the same place: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.UberCryxic 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayson mills

Hi there! You probably want to check out the use for Speedy deletes templates! In the article Jayson mills it is so obvious that we should not go through the regular deletion process, but can rather use the speedy delete. Check out Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Mceder 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GIen's RfA: Thank you!

Image:Glen thankyou.gif
Image:Glenty.gif
Funky Monkey for your Support!
II feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here:
My mop & I shall thwart all evil :)
IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Thanks Funky

Hey Funky Monkey, thank you so much for your RfA support and your congrats message. And thankyou for offering to nominate me yourself and for encouraging me to get on with it. No, I'm not too upset by the negative comments. I fully expected the 1FA people to oppose. But Orane really baffled me. I have never exchanged a single word with him, so I'm rather confused about his attitude towards me. I'm just glad that it's all over! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you with any adminy things (and please tell me if you notice me screw anything up!) Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Hello, sorry about that I didn't know. Thank you for informing me of this. Is this source okay.[3]--Stardust6000 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I wanted to thank you for your welcome message on my talk page. I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to touching base with you sooner. I actually have a quick question for you. I did a little bit of work on the Richard skipper article, the text of which had been almost entirely deleted for copyright violations. I noticed that the "S" in his last name on the title of the article isn't capitalized. I'm not sure how to correct this. Would you mind helping me out? Thanks! KindSould 09:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Mariah Carey

Do not be hasty when removing information from articles. In your latest edit to the Mariah Carey article, you removed important information from the intro, claiming that it was not sourced. However, it is not imperative that things be sourced in the intro (unless it's the d.o.b); information in the intro is (or should be) repeated/replicated in the body of the article, and should be sourced there. In other words, if you had checked the body of the article, you would see that the information that you removed was sourced there. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim in the body is not sourced either. Only the Diamond award is sourced. If it's not sourced by tomorrow, I'll remove it again. Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't give me any ultimatums. Look properly; the information is sourced. And if you remove it again, I'll give you the warning template for removal of material, leading to any relevant actions I may have to take. We here at Wikipedia are respectful of other people's hard work. If you see a piece of info that you claim is unsourced, you place the {{citationneeded}} or {{specify}} templates there and wait! You are only supposed to directly remove content when it is clearly misleading and harmful. Orane (talk • cont.) 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your threat to me. You once again embarrass yourself by not knowing full policy. Jimbo, a person far superior here to you has made the following quote, as posted on my user page.

On POV-pushing

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Jimmy Wales, Tue, 16 May 2006 16:30:15 -0400


The claim I removed is rather a bold claim, and despite other lesser claims being sourced in the intro, this one remains unsourced, therefore I was quite within my rights to remove it. As we're all supposed to be adults here I have added a citation needed tag and request as a compromise you add the source to the claim. I once again remind you of WP:CIVIL and request you moderate your tone in any further correspondence with me.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for not clinging to every word that Mr. Wales has said. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a dictatorship. Secondly, the point that I made about you leaving information in the article was not made up. If I may quote the rule, it says:
"Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:
  • if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use [specify]
  • if it is not doubtful, you may use [citation needed] or [cite this quote] tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
  • if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use [verification needed] tag to ask for source verification.
  • If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
  • If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first."
So forgive me for following concensus-instituted policies instead of some random point of view that was uttered half a year ago. As I'm sure you are aware of, things and time change on Wikipedia. So indeed, I have not embarassed myself. I know the policies-- even if I'm not aware of every word said by Jimbo.

And don't quote "civil" at me. I was never aggressive towards you. And if you require sources, I'll place them on you talk page as well as in the article: proof. This first source is from youtube. Listen closely, the information is repeated a million times. Other sources: [4], 2000 World music awards results, Billboard, reported on mc archives, find articles, island records. Hope there's no confusion. Please, do have a lovely day and a Merry Christmas when it comes. lol Orane (talk • cont.) 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for following procedure and adding the citation I requested. On a side note, it is true that Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, but neither is it a democracy which means that the "random point of view" as you quote it is actually a policy decision enforced by Jimbo whether it was "uttered half a year ago" or not. I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here. Funky Monkey  (talk)  05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Please, if it's not too much to ask, do not patronise me. I have sensed an ounce of this is many of your replies to me (for example, you telling me I have once again embarassed myself (?!?), the latest, "Also do you really think that a personal homepage on Geocities [5] that you quote is a reliable source???? I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here," or other such subtle, yet condescending, comments.)
First off, lets not pretend. You hate my guts, and you have done so ever since that time you basically demanded that I remove a playful sign from my userpage. Even though I e-mailed you about my actions I received no reply, and in behaviour that can only be interpreted as trolling, you continued to pop up in both my talk page (after I kindly asked you not to) and in other areas involving me (for instance, you found your way to, and opposed, my mediation candidacy because it was your opinion that I was guilty of "inappropriate edit summaries," which, I might add, has absolutely nothing to do with being a competent mediator) to, it seems, take revenge.
I'm not gonna deny that your indifference towards me isnt reciprocated. Believe me, it is. But I have tried to avoid you many times, and have spoken in the best possible way I know how. However, it seems that whenever I do that, you find a way to call attention to my actions by randomly quoting policies at me or calling me out for doing something of which you yourself are guilty (I'm referring to the above comments where you threatened that "If it's not sourced by tomorrow, I'll remove it again," then telling me not to threaten you after I told you that I would give you the warning tamplate, leading to any appropriate actions).
The thing that prompted my reply here, however, was your way of asking me about the geocities website. No. I am not an idiot. I know geocities websites are not valid, authoritative sources. My intention (and if you wanted to see it, you probably would have) was to show that the fact that Carey was the best selling was almost common knowledge and found everywhere, ranging from youtube to the WMA site, to news reports, to billboard, to fansites, to biographies, to random sites. That is why I posted so many sources on your page. As you can see, the geocities site was not used to source "Mariah Carey." And yes, I am well-aware of the concern of youtube as a valid source.
Let me close by requesting that you contol youself. Don't speak condescendingly towards others and the attitude will be shown in return. We are all adults here. And to quote you, "I trust this information will prove to be useful in your future editing endeavors here." Orane (talk • cont.) 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply confirms what I've been saying. I did not simply '"pop up" on [your] talk page with threats of a warning and "leading to any relevant actions I may have to take".' I reminded you respectfully, not to be too hasty and look in the body for the information was sourced there. That's all I said. You, on the other hand, were blunt and unyielding. If you hadn't behaved that way, I would never have dreamed of referring to any warnings.

Never mind that you believe the policies were on your side, a point that can be argued as you clearly see that the policy (and Mr. Wales) were referring especially to the removal of controversial/harmful information, which I pointed out to you. The fact that they may be on your side isn't what I'm getting at. The point is that the way you chose to explain yourself, and the tone of your replies are condescending (again, telling me to "get some help with my paranoia," telling me not to e-mail you, or using the fact that you may be abiding by the policies as an excuse for your blunt and disrespectful replies). And this didnt start now. It has been going on for a while whenever you correspond with me. For instance, when referring to the edit about the article long ago, you said "A simple check here, (this is an encyclopedia after all), would have shown you..." You don't see an ounce of unpleasantness in that? I know its an encyclopedia. I'm an Admin for it. And in case you have forgotten, you did display trollish behaviour (example) when the situation had nothing to do with you. I could cite more if you wished. And, if you weren't tracking my edits and contribution (trolling) you wouldn't have ended up in every issue I've been involved with to somehow oppose me (which, as I'm sure you have realised, had no effect on the outcome. I am still, afterall, a mediator :D, and I'm still using "Orane" as a sig)

Anyway, that being said, I'm going to ignore you whenever I can. But if I see you displaying questionable actions, I will approach you whether you like it or not (and I do encourage you to do the same— respectfully). I'm gonna be as kind as I can however. I just hope that you can return the favour, whether or not you feel you are in the right. Have a good life. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/n/User_talk%7EFunky_Monkey_3c91.html"