User talk:Monkeynuts54

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Monkeynuts54, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Vianello (Talk) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Monkeynuts54, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it it appears to be obscene. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why.

Monkey nuts is the name given to peanuts in the shell in northern England, where I was raised. Not for a second did I think it was obscene. If you believe it is, please let me know and I will file for a name-change. I'm very easy-going about such things. Many thanks. ∼∼∼∼.

As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. - Vianello (Talk) 05:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you're right! Well, never mind then. It's questionable at first blush, but I don't see any real problem with that being the case. - Vianello (Talk) 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name not offensive. Resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhod Sharp

Hi. I appreciate that you're trying to improve the article, but some of your changes don't really help. The trouble is that we have a policy on verifiability which means that all text has to be supported by a reliable source. This applies particularly to opinions and articles on living people. The stuff you've added is almost certainly true, but it can't stay unless you can say where you got the information from. Hope this was helpful. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I see your point completely. The only additions I have made to Wikipedia are those that I have specific and very definite knowledge about. The amendments made to the Rhod Sharp article, for instance, are added because they involve myself. I would be grateful, therefore, if these could be left as they are. I will not insert anything into any articles in future without including a reference. ∼∼∼∼

August 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Up All Night" 18 August 2010

Hi Monkeynuts (or may I call you Mr Peters?) I heard your excellent discussion with Rhod Sharp earlier this morning on Up All Night (I am listener number 12 of 15, I think) and enjoyed your creativity and frankness about your editing on Wikipedia. However, much as I enjoyed reading about your gift for handwriting analysis, "Operation Parallax" and so on, it won't surprise you to hear that I'm not entirely convinced that all these things are accurate... [later clarification: I'm not saying that what you've added is inaccurate, merely that without proper back-up sources, it's difficult to know what to take seriously and what not - and that goes for the whole of Wikipedia, not just your article]

As you've picked up by now, I think, Wikipedia is only as good as the people editing it. We (and I use the term to mean the editing community here) do our best to try and stop unverified information getting into articles, particularly those of living people where there's a real potential for harm, but we don't always succeed, as you've proved. Nor could we prevent your article and Rhod's claiming for a short while that you had entered a civil partnership together, although that's been removed from both.

What I've done is this: I've taken the article about you back to an earlier version, before you started your alterations. I've also removed the bit about you being the voice of Charlie Chaplin in Fog City Mavericks to be on the safe side. I'm going to let one or two (or more) people (with more experience than me about how to handle such situations and international celebrities) know about this discussion, to make sure everything's OK. And I'll make you this offer - if you can point me in the direction of any sources about your life and career, I'll gladly take a look and see what can be added to the article. You made a comment in the radio discussion about not needing to send out a CV when you could just give a link to your Wikipedia biography, but as I hope you realise that's not the idea of a Wikipedia article!

Incidentally, photographs improve articles immensely - if you'd be interested in adding a photograph of yourself, I'd be happy to help.

Regards, and very best wishes, Bencherlite ^Talk 09:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - you may spot from the recent edits to Cash Peters that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) himself has taken an interest in the issue! He's added back in the Charlie Chaplin information (and I'm pleased that's confirmed), and suggested that a few editors try and find . One difficulty is that some of the information you've added is difficult at the moment to verify from sources other than your website, and / or it's difficult to find an online source that mentions your involvement. One of Wikipedia's main policies is verifiability, and sources that are independent of the subject of the article are preferred in an ideal world. If you've got any further information, online or offline, that would help us in our quest to make this an article of which we can all be proud, do let us know. For example, your article mentions that "Marketplace" won a Peabody in 2002, but the Peabody website says 2000: is this the one? And is the Benjamin Franklin award from the Independent Book Publishers Association? Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave

I hope this wasn't completely final, as it seems from your contributions and what I've heard from you on the radio that you would probably be a net positive to the project. The response to your edits has been mostly positive, with support coming in from no less than Jimbo Wales both here and here, and from Bencherlite, who intially reverted your additions, here. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]