Hey - I want to open a dialogue about the dec. 4 edits of The Album Leaf. Can you check out the talk page? --DaveyE 07:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, I appreciate the attention you've given this and that you've included me rather than simply reverting my edits. I've described my view on the talk page, this should cover it well. Moonty 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia entries (and I apologize if I have done so incorrectly and/or am taking this discussion to the wrong spot) and I recently made an edit to the Independent (Indie) Music page that you reverted. The edit was the addition of an external link to StylusCity.org, which is a resource and community space for those in the independent music business. I had not been logged in at the time, and I can understand why you thought it was linkspam, but it is in my careful and considerate opinion a website that provides further information on the topic and, furthermore, is relevant and without bias. If you disagree, that's fine, but if you were deleting it purely on the basis that I had not signed in or perhaps had not followed a protocol of which I was unaware, it would be excellent to perhaps reconsider the usefulness of the link. If you have any suggestions on more proper editing in the future, that would be terrific, as well.

Thanks,

12sharks 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, if we were to include every site that could potentially be useful, especially something in something so broad as indie (music). Look through WP:LINKS#Links_to_be_considered and read the requirements. If StylusCity.org was bigger, and eventually it could be the case, it might be included, but now it is just does not have enough to make it worthy of being a notable link. Moonty 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I understand the principle by which you're operating here - and I commend you for your vigilance - but I do think that this case is a little different. I completely agree with your point on the size and notoriety criterion, but I don't think that's the only quality that applies. This website is a directory of independent record stores, non-commercial radio stations, and so on, with information such as address, phone number, genres/formats sold, etc. Its merit and relevance is based not on its own prominence in the public consciousness but on its function in providing information on the subject. A website like Trouserpress is an example of the independent music culture and lined up against that StylusCity.org is basically unknown, but the link was not added to provide someone with information on the 'phenomenon' that is StylusCity.org but act as a conduit of sorts connecting the user with information about locations where the products of the independent music culture can be found. The Independent Film entry for Wikipedia has imdb.com listed in its external links primarily because it is a reference for films and in my mind the same applies here with StylusCity.org. 207.224.21.228 09:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between imdb.com and StylusCity.org in terms of content and size; this is one of the big things in this issue. StylusCity has, what, five users registered? That's what I'm gathering [1]. Also, given that you apparently are either a big player in the site or running the site, this is a definite potential conflict of interest. This link is definitely not useful or beneficial to the page in its current state. If it happens to grow and become a large force in the indie scene, then sure, by all means it should be there! But given its current state, there is no reason to include it. There's hardly anything there at all! If WP included every link that somebody (the owner/administrator of the site, even) thought was useful -- or even could be useful, then it would just be a freely editable link directory. That's hardly the scope of an encyclopedia, is it? Moonty 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is understood. I was familiar with the guidelines for posting prior to my edit, but I clearly could have brushed up more on the conflict of interest section. It didn't take much observation to deduce that I'm involved with this website (and I did not try to hide the fact) and you're completely right about the objectivity being at stake. In my own defense, it is clearly within the three guidelines for eligible external links (#2, directories), but it does have a ways to go before it becomes a respected resource. I maintain that my intentions were respectful and considerate of the Wikipedia community and my primary motivation was to expose the users to a website with further information on the topic for the benefit of everyone included. Of course, I do realize now how such exposure is not the exactly the focus of Wikipedia and I will hope StylusCity could be considered a reputable reference sometime in the future. Until then, thanks for your help and keep up the good work. 12sharks 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad we got this resolved amicably. I agree, your motivations were admirable. Good luck with the site! I'm a designer and developer myself, so if there's any way I might be able to help, shoot me a message.

Hey there, could you mark pages as patrolled once you have applied a speedy deletion template to the page. That way I don't keep looking at pages that have already been checked :). Thanks. UKWikiGuy (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks--makes sense, don't know why I didn't really notice before. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you marked Adslgate as G4 - reposted deleted material - this was a mistake. G4 only applies to material that was deleted by a community discussion such as wp:AFD. This means that anything deleted via WP:PROD or speeding cannot be deleted as G4. In fact, we encourage creators of new articles that have been speedily deleted to address the issues that lead to its deletion and recreate the article. Nevertheless, articles that were recreated after being speedied are often speedied for the same reason as the earlier version was. Jon513 (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for the info. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would request a speedy deletion of Theodora Kantakouzene minutes while I started working on an article. I haven't had the chance to add any more than an introduction yet!

Apologies if there's been a mistake -- mark stub next time at the very least; read Wikipedia:Starting an article please; esp. "Consider creating the article on your user page first. If you have a user id, (which you must have if you are considering creating a new article), you also have your own area to start working on a new article; you can get it in shape there, take your time, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready for prime time." – moonty (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is for no context, when you can not tell what an article is about. A very short stub where the subject is clear does not qualify for this. I have therefore removed your speedy on Transportation law & put on an "underconstruction" tag to let the editor finish the article. Please be careful with articles that people have just started. It is perfectly permissible to edit an article one sentence at a time, and there is no rule against subs. See WP:STUB. The advice you quoted above is given to prevent incorrect speedies, a rather frequent occurrence around here, not as a required method. Remember we need to give every possible encouragement to new editors. Offer advice, unless it is clear from the start hat the article is altogether hopeless. DGG (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , just wanted to say that I made a typo when creating the page and the page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CChuck_Freadhoff As you can see , there is a double "CC" error , so I was wondering if you could rectify it.... --Roaring Siren (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the way your message was directed to me is rude and insulting, why was the page removed and how is it different from this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventis_BackupSuite_2008

Please provide a prompt response regarding the actual content of the page. The page describes the software program and describes how it works and provides information about usage and limitations. Please explain why it is not suitable for wikipedia with comparison to the link above.

Also please avoide using the attitude with threats to blocking. Try to be a bit civilized. I thought wikipedia was a solid professional firm and with that i expect professional communication.

Thank you.

Dee.0x29a (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One: the message I used is a standard template. I used it because you had created the article multiple times after it had been deleted Two: I wasn't concerned with other articles that may or may not follow guidelines, frankly. The only thing to do is to examine a single page with regards to guidelines... not make justifications based on other articles that Three: I didn't delete XR Backup. I proposed it for deletion, and it has to undergo review from an administrator before it's deleted.

Hope that clears things up.

– moonty (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I think you made a mistake in reverting this edit by me at Emmanuel Adebayor. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah--thanks for letting me know. There were a lot of edits and I got lost in the mix, hit undo when it wasn't meant to be undone. Thanks for the understanding. – moonty (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC) via AWB[reply]

That article meant a lot to me, Moonty. Why did you delete Milo & Otis II: The Kidney of Sydney? It advertises the movie that I'm making and I really want to know: is there any way in which you can, you know, undo that speedy deletion, please?

Thank you, Minervasux (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Hello, Moonty. 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]