User talk:Monty845

Talkback

Hello, Monty845. You have new messages at 70.21.5.28's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Monty845! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Yummy!

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 {{cookie}}s, 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}}!

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC 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. Monty₈₄₅ 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•V) 15:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Original Barnstar
		for setting up the Supplemental RFC of ACE2011 promptly. Great work! - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Monty₈₄₅ 16:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:President of Croatia

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:President of Croatia. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Voting Guide

Would you mind placing the table itself in a separate subpage of the guide and then transcluding it onto your guide? That would be appreciated so other users, like myself, can place a collapsible box with that table in it on their guides for reference, and it will all be updated in one, single place. This is entirely up to you, but I'd suggest it :).  JoeGazz  ♂  02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have added no-include tags, that should allow you to transclude the table only, without requiring it to be in a subpage. See below. Monty₈₄₅ 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sample transclusion of the table only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Candidate Election Result Support Percent (S/(S+O)) Difference Badger Drink Carcharoth Ealdgyth Elonka Guerillero Heimstern HJ Mitchell Hurricanefan25 Joe Gazz84 Kiefer.Wolfowitz Master&Expert NuclearWarfare RegentsPark Rschen7754 SandyGeorgia Sven Manguard William M. Connolley Wizardman Courcelles 79.74% 94.12% −14.38% Strong support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Abstain Support Indomitably Strong Support Support Support Support Support Support Oppose Support Hersfold 71.84% 92.85% −21.02% Support Support Neutral Support Support Support Likely Support Weak Support Strong Support Support Persuasively No Vote Support Neutral Support Abstain Support Oppose Support SilkTork 70.87% 92.31% −21.44% Strong support Support Support Support No Info Support Support Oppose Abstain Support Mightily No Vote Support Support Neutral Support No vote Support Support Risker 75.66% 88.24% −12.58% Oppose Support Support Probable support Support Support Slightly Reluctant Support Strong Support Support Support Mightily Strong Support Support Support Neutral Support Strong Support Strong Oppose Support AGK 70.81% 85.71% −14.90% Strong support Support Support Oppose Abstain Support Support No Vote Likely Support Support Mightily Strong Support Support Strong Support Neutral Abstain Support Oppose Support Roger Davies 72.06% 81.25% −9.19% Support Support Neutral Support No Info Slight Support Support Strong Oppose Support Support Mightily Support Support Strong Support Support Support Strong Oppose Oppose Support Kirill Lokshin 72.51% 61.54% 10.97% Support Oppose Neutral Support Support Support Undecided Weak Oppose Abstain Support Indomitably Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Support No Vote Oppose Support Jclemens 60.54% 35.71% 24.83% Strong Oppose Support Neutral Support Abstain Oppose Probably Support Oppose Abstain Support Persuasively Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Abstain Oppose Strong Oppose Oppose Top 8 candidates above 50% support in the actual vote will be seated per the supplemental RFC Worm That Turned 59.03% 57.14% 1.89% Strong Oppose Support Oppose Weak oppose Abstain Oppose Undecided Support Support Oppose Firmly Support No Vote Support Support Oppose Support Support Abstain Panyd 43.19% 28.57% 14.62% Oppose Oppose Oppose Weak oppose No Info Lean Oppose Abstain Weak Support Strong support Oppose Maturely Support Oppose Oppose Neutral Oppose Support Oppose Abstain Eluchil404 29.62% 26.67% 2.95% Oppose Support Oppose Weak oppose No Info Oppose Oppose Oppose Abstain Oppose Maturely Support No Vote Oppose Support Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Kww 38.34% 25.00% 13.34% Strong support Oppose Oppose Oppose No Info Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Support Tactically Oppose No Vote Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong support Oppose DeltaQuad 34.04% 21.43% 12.60% Support Oppose Oppose Oppose No Info Oppose Undecided Weak Oppose No Vote Support Tactically Oppose Oppose Oppose Support Oppose No Vote Oppose Oppose Coren 56.01% 18.75% 37.26% Oppose Oppose Neutral Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Support Indomitably Oppose No Vote Oppose Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Geni 27.91% 0.00% 27.91% Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Oppose Firmly Oppose Oppose Oppose Neutral Oppose No vote Oppose Oppose Hot Stop 12.47% 0.00% 12.47% Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Should withdraw Oppose Obviously Strong Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Strong Oppose Oppose NWA.Rep 16.04% 0.00% 16.04% Strong Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Hell No Oppose Strong Oppose Strong Oppose Oppose Obviously Strong Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Strong Oppose Strong Oppose Strong Oppose Maxim Withdrawn No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info Withdrawn No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info PaoloNapolitano Not Eligible No Info No Info No Info No Info Strong Oppose No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info Undecided No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info No Info S/N/O Seats Filled 8 Seats Open Seats Remaining Vacant 8/0/9 9/0/8 4/5/8 8/0/9 4/3/4 6/0/10 7/1/6 5/1/11 6/1/5 11/0/6 7/2/8 6/4/7 8/2/7 8/5/4 5/3/9 6/4/7 4/0/13 7/2/8 Correlation between support and winners 53.9% 64.7% 100% 76.5% 100% 88.2% 100% 25% 63.6% 64.7% 33.3% 69.2% 73.3% 16.6% 100% 38.5% -52.9% 87.5% Correlation between support and drawing 50% of the votes 53.9% 64.7% 83.3% 76.5% 75% 64.7% 84.6% 25% 81.8% 64.7% 33.3% 69.2% 73.3% 50% 71.4% 38.5% -52.9% 73.3% Notes This guide writer has been indef blocked Deleted after the close of voting

Ah, that is wonderful, I would never have thought about doing that, I appreciate you pointing that out. Thanks and have a wonderful day!  JoeGazz  ♂  16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• And while we're on that subject, here's a barnstar:

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your useful at-a-glance guide to the guides. Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 1 December 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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Louise Féron			Donald J. Russell
	No Other Life			Google Catalogs
	Sta-Prest			Tha Carter II
	Arrest without warrant		Merge
	Tight trousers			Political arguments of gun politics in the United States
	Charlie Richmond (referee)			Hamburger
	Fergus (novel)			Oracle E-Business Suite
	Akershus Kollektivterminaler		Add sources
	P. V. Rajamannar			Feron
	An Answer from Limbo			Pius XI High School
	Phillip Alford			Marlin Model 60
	Madra Dam		Wikify
	Futsal in Scotland			Performance Rating (Work Measurement)
	Indiana State Road 104			The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble
	Wartime Lies			Sharovary
	The Doctor's Wife (Brian Moore novel)		Expand
	Marie Seton			Ginger Kids
	Alexander Shaw (Canadian politician)			Black Robe (film)
	Lake Rosalind (Ontario)			2009–10 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season

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) 04:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks but no thanks.

Seriously, a major problem with Wikipedia is revert monkey morons like Bobjim45 who insist on abusing automated tools like Twinkle to boost their edit count without paying a moment's notice to ensuring that they aren't reverting corrections made to incorrect or out of date information. So thanks but no thanks, my edit summary was 100% correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.115.188.220 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone names is never appropriate. Your complaints regarding the editor in question will be taken much more seriously if you avoid name calling. I saw at least one edit you recently made that restored highly negative, unsourced material, about living people that User:Bobjim45 had properly removed, it was a major violation of WP:BLP policy. Attacking an editor for that is clearly uncalled for. Monty₈₄₅ 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• • whatever, you right wing jerk. We get it, all you totalitarian fake christian types are the same, always about protecting your corrupt masters and never caring about the rights of women.