User talk:MonMan

Welcome!

Hello, MonMan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MonMan, thanks for entering the discussion/voting at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places). It's good to see other users supporting the use of traditional counties as a sensible and stable reference frame. I don't know what you think about splitting county articles, but I feel that this would be most advantageous per my (many!) comments on that page. If you find yourself in agreement with any of these, I invite you to say so. I think that quite a few people agree with this idea, but the trouble is that it is those contributors who don't who are the most vocal, which could give a false impression of their overall support. If you believe that traditional counties should be used as your comments here suggest, I think it would help establish a better consensus and keep policy on the right track if you could say on the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places) page. Many thanks, and keep up the good work! 80.255 19:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) P.s. as you seem to be quite new and have not made many edits to article space, it might be advisable to make some if you want your opinions on county policy to carry weight.[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against sock puppetry. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.

Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock-puppetry? Are you suggesting I'm a tool of someone else? Where's the evidence of this? Am I correct in thinking I can get blocked without any due-process? Of whom am I being accused of being a sock puppet? Does anyone do any investigation before blindly wielding the axe? MonMan 14:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet or Innocent Victim? You Decide!

As Jimbo so eruditely puts it: There Is No Cabal!

I'm wondering how quickly I will receive my apology, considering the rapidity with which my account was blocked. Right now, I don't see any need to prove my independent existence, as no evidence was asked of me before this unilateral action was enacted. Aren't I entitled to any Due Process here? MonMan 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I am an admin and have put forward an unblock motion on the Administrator's noticeboard. I'm seeing if another admin will come along and second it. Considering the history of your account (and of the User:Owain account), I feel its highly unlikely that you are a sockpuppet...and just as unlikely that you are a meatpuppet recruited to sway a vote. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. :/ --Syrthiss 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a lot in that it would restore my faith in the system. Just being able to edit my own talk page makes me feel like a prisoner! MonMan 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Thatcher131 -- You have stated that you withdraw your defense of me not being a sockpuppet of Owain -- can you please explain why? I am deeply saddened that no-one (with the notable exception of Syrthiss) seems to be taking this seriously. How about flat-out asking me if I'm a sockpuppet? Or maybe do some more research?? Once again, I reiterate: No-one has asked me anything; I'm simply being talked about in the third person like some naughty child. MonMan 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered on my user page that an admin give us both a telephone call to prove we are different people. I have just re-iterated this on the Admin's noticeboard. This whole debacle is laughable. I agree with you that the fact that this whole debate is being carried out in the third person, with nobody asking *us* anything is amazing, although I am tending to disagree with you that There Is No Cabal! :( Owain (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis is posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Owain (talk • contribs). If you are a separate person, you are very single-minded and only edit articles that Owain edits, and usually when Owain is in the midst of an argument with someone else. For example, you appeared on March 3 after a 2 week absence and reverted an article after Owain had already reverted it 3 times (in other words, you did what Owain could not do without getting blocked). That is the extent to which any of use can do "research", with the exception of a very small number of people with the Checkuser privilege (which indicated you were a "likely" sockpuppet). I am not 100% sure that you are Owain using a false name, but since I'm not an admin I don't have any say in what happens to you other than to offer opinions such as I have done. Whether admins accept or reject my opinion is something I have no control over. Thatcher131 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131, thanks for taking the time to respond. Owain and I are indeed separate people; there is no collusion taking place here -- he was merely kind enough to point out articles in which I may be interested, and show me how Wikipedia operates. At no time did Owain use my account, nor did he force me to make any edits against my will. It would appear simply that we share a common interest. Owain has made thousands of edits so far, and I but a few. Regarding the three revert rule (which I must admit I did not fully understand until recently), it must be clear that there are many users that share the same point of view, and any one of them could've made the third revert -- I guess it was just luck that put me in that position. Surely this cannot be the only piece of evidence needed to block me? Regarding you comments about your not being an admin, may I ask, respectfully, under what authority are you discussing my plight? Does you acceptance, and subsequent (unfortunate) rejection of my side of the argument hold any sway? May I ask you to re-evaluate this situation, and the meagre evidence heretofore sumbitted? MonMan 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger Strike for The Truth

Still no resolution to this mess, eh? I see that everyone who's accusing me of felonious activity have fallen silent, while I'm still here, locked in this single-page prison. Can User:JzG (the one who pulled the trigger), User:Mais oui! (the one who put the gun in his hand)), User:Syrthiss (the only person who seems to be on my side), User:Thatcher131 (the person who initially thought of me as victim, but inexplicably changed their mind) please gather here to discuss this? The silence is deafening...

pgk's Removal of my Unblock request

Now, this is getting silly! User:Pgk has removed my unblock request without a single syllable of reasoning being uttered. With great power comes great responsibility. Let's just assume for a minute that I acutally am a real person (no one has even flat-out asked me yet if I am!); do you--or any other admins--think this is a friendly and fair way to treat a new Wikipedian? I've seen self-confessed serial vandals receive better treatment... :(

Therefore, in my quest to get reinstated (and an apology would be nice!!), and also to make the valuable point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I hereby request respectfully that my unblocking take place.

Occam's Razor

So, what's more likely: that I'm a fantastic and wily creation of another user specifially designed to back him up on certain issues, or I'm just a separate human being who happens to agree with him on some topics, and used to live in the same hometown?

Given your edit history, and the subjects involved, it's a tough call. But you say otherwise, and I am prepared to believe you. Just zis Guy you know? 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you, following your email to me stating that you are not Owain. But the reason more than one of us thought you were a sockpuppet is that all you edits are to articles which Owain also edits, and most of your edits support Owain's agenda. There is a fair weight of opinion behind leaving the block in place. I suggest you cultivate a broader range of interests. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. By recruiting you to express your opinion only in articles where he was in conflict with other editors, Owain broke the rules and the results of his actions are the same as if your account was just him logging in under another name. As far as authority is concerned, any wikipedian can comment on any topic. I got interested in your situation in a roundabout way. I noticed that there was a lot of acrimony around articles nominated for deletion related to the politics of Vaughan, Ontario, Canada, which led to a request for comment being filed in which case the subject of the attacks named everyone who had attacked him as a sockpuppet. Most of the attackers have refused to comment (and one was proved to have used over 30 sockpuppet accounts) but one person did and denied he was a sockpuppet and was getting very frustrated becuase no one seemed to be taking his side. I looked into it and agreed that he was unfairly accused, in the end even the person who originally accused him agreed he had made a mistake. I then noticed your situation and thought I might be able to help in the same way; after all, as I said, I believe it is possible for two people to know each other off wiki and have the same interests without being meat or sockpuppets. However when I looked in depth and saw the pattern of your posting I felt I had to retract my earlier defense as I no longer believed it. The fact that you only edited where it would help Owain in disputes made you bannable whether you are a separate person or not. I agree with JzG that now that you an unbanned you should develop a broader range of interests. Thatcher131 11:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for seeing the light! I feel less emasculated now. ;) For the record, I think it's only fair to point out that Owain did not recruit me as such; he was actually very helpful in teaching me how to express my own opinions on the aforementioned discussion pages. Along the way, I had dabbled in changing some other pages that were not related to this debate--ones that still fell within my sphere of knowledge. I'm not sure if that's considered 'breaking the rules', but anyway, I'm glad to be back! MonMan 14:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK infobox templates

There is currently a debate about replacing the existing UK place infoboxes with a unified one. I generally support this proposal but there is an attempt to remove the historic county information that a lot of people worked on and where a consensus was reached. I would appreciate your input into this. Thanks. Owain (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the discussion is at Template talk:Infobox GB place#Straw polls Owain (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Darkrealm (November 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mcmatter were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Darkrealm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MonMan! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Darkrealm

Hello, MonMan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Darkrealm, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Darkrealm

Hello, MonMan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Darkrealm".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]