If, for reasons only known to yourself, you don't believe the BBC reference - contact the show yourself.

92.12.106.206 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it cannot be confirmed, me contacting the show personally will not give a valuable third party ref, it would be classed as 'hear say'. Third party refs will become available if it is to happen. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now added another reference confirming Manchester show.

92.12.106.206 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this to the article discussion page in question. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work.

Also, you know that you can remove the welcome banner at the top of this talk page? If you're not using the links then it makes for a cleaner layout and makes it easier to get to the table of contents. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.--John (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a reply on Talk:Lorenzo_Amoruso#Racism_U_turn but just to add here - I've been kinda away from WP for a day or so. I'm hoping to dive into that article and clean up the additions from that user sometime in the next few days. I took a look at their other edits and there seems to be other material to clean. I wasn't sure if you planned to d oany of it - so before jumping in wanted to check :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, yeh the other articles the user has edited need seriously cleaned, especialy the Hugh Dallas one. Although another user has tagged it for a complete rewrite recently which i would agree with. I plan to try to do some of it in the next few days and would be greatful if you could check it to prevent the user from making accusations about biased intentions (i will leave you a message). Monkeymanman (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I was just reading that article. In the spirits of AGF I just left him/her a pretty extensive policy reading list, hopefully that will get across what we are trying to explain...... I'll keep an eye on the articles for content. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the ANI you raised against myself still does not seem to be marked as resolved.

Now that we are to proceed through RfC as a proper means of resolving the issues, I'm sure you will agree that the knee-jerk ANI is now doubly innapropriate.

I look forward to its timely withdrawal and continued dialogue/co-operation 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you are still trying to include material (which you have been instructed not to) on the article that raised the ANI debate initially ....Monkeymanman (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up. 86.172.236.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding similar rewrites to the other rangers seasons. I didn't revert them because it expanded the content - was just weasely. I'm not sure I have the time to correct, but if you do then I thought I would let you know :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom, i noticed one of them and had my suspicions about the others but had yet to check. Cheers. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at ScottyBerg's talk page.
Message added 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hello, I've made some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Al Pacino/archive1.--BelovedFreak 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm really sorry, but I completely forgot to go back to this. I will try to have a good look later today.--BelovedFreak 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long. it's looking good. I've left a few more comments for you to peruse. --BelovedFreak 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving this message as a courtesy to you that the edit war at The Best (song) has run on long enough; it's time to take the issue to the talk page, lest either you or the IP gets blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up, i have repeatedly asked that the user in question use the talk pages. Sorry for any trouble. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In cases like that, I usually make sure to put "Please discuss" or the like in the edit summary, and then start a section there with a "What's your object to…?" That gets the discussion going—or makes it easy to see who has attempted to discuss it and who has refused. (Or, in a case like this, put "restoring sourced material deleted without explanation" in the edit summary, so it's easier to make a case that I'm reverting vandalism.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably aware, but the same editor is active with similar situations across wikipedia at the moment and it is dragging my patience to its limit. Thanks for the reply and advice Monkeymanman (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked for now for edit warring. Don't give up hope; disruptive editors are annoying but some good content has come out of his additions (that's clutching for straws). In the meant time here's a Barnstar for all your help and to stop you feeling down. Keep up the good work --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) discouraged.[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		for staying calm and working against disruptive editing despite the headaches Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hey there Monkeymanman, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Monkeymanman/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take matters to BLP/N it is courteous to notify other involved editors. It is also considered courteous not to quote selectively from the sources, so as to to misrepresent the issue. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Courteous', maybe, but not 'needed'. My question was about content, not anything relating to your editing history. I dont believe i did and did not intend to 'misrepresent' any issue. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to conduct yourself courteously per WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strikeout the selective quote to show that your intention was not to mislead. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to mislead, and do not think i did. The fact that the first person to mention the ref on the BLP noticeboard quoted the author, shows that they have read the source for themselves. Therefore my quote on the noticeboard was irrelevant. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is disrupting multiple article of living people, a report will be required as his behavior is ongoing at multiple articles. I am collecting data for the report.Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry again for taking a little while to get back to you, but I've responded at User talk:Belovedfreak#Reply. :) --BelovedFreak 17:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should self revert the last change. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Admin user:Crazycomputers has protected the article and recommended dispute resolution and discussion, a very fair result under the circumstances. Please use policies and guidelines rather that revert, revert, revert as that path is a slippery slope. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to comment here at the BLP/N. You may also wish to notify user:Off2riorob as I am unable to write on his talk page. Thanks, 90.200.240.178 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Michael J. Fox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 14+ days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination Held

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. Once you have corrected the items I have listed for correction please add ((done)) next to the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. --Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portion that I was most concerned about was indeed the "Mid Career" section. I will check off the part regarding the focused. I am still thinking about the MOS part though, for this type of article with many tables I may ask for a second opinion. --Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will re-read it. If you wish to do more work on the page you may but at this time it is not necessary. I will take it from here and get back to you. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination Question

I am truly sorry that I have not closed your request for GA I will take care of that immediately and will put that on the top priority of my list. I do not feel that it is necessary for a second opinion unless you believe it s necessary. So you know, I intend on approving the request, I just need a response from you for me to do it making sure you don't need a second opinion. I need the response because once it is closed it is final. Thank you, Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Talk:Bible John.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Not sure if you're aware of this: User:Monkeymanman/Sandbox, but you may want to be the one to deal with it. Yinzland

done. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you wouldn't mind would you watch list Nichole Kidman for her filmography section? Mostly IP's keep adding non-notable awards to her. I'd appreciate the help. If you look at my contributions you will see that I removed a lot on non-notable awards in the past few days from articles, so much so that it's actually getting annoying. So help would really be good for me. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you miss this I thought I would bring it to your attentions. You reverted this editor as vandalism and I think it was a good faith edit. Have a happy, healthy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If something has been tagged since 2008 or 2009 and still not cited appropriately then either the contested text should be rv or the tag date updated to reflect the last inspection, no? Also tagging every other sentence, when the text can be merged and one tag only needed per paragraph, say, is preferable in every way, when possible. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"rv, thats not how it works as i have been repeatedly told" -- who told you what?? Perhaps we should explore any misconceptions either of us has. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK so the text which has been contested since 2008, 2009, etc. should be rv. I'm on it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - and the warm words ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monkeyman. Could you explain the overlink thing as I didn't quite understand it (possibly through being over-tired at work!) Mattun0211 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yep - pretty obvious - it had been along day and I just couldn't work it out! Mattun0211 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, however no-one really edits/vandalises that page and their was clear criteria as to which matches to include. I just assumed another editor would see that and add the Rangers results in as I couldn't really be bothered doing them.
Anyway the reason I added that in was because I think their should be more information about the footballing side of the OF rather than just the political stuff, I was going to do a table with all OF matches since the SPL began and also Manager v Manager and Manager v Club records but if you really think it would be a bad idea then I suppose theirs no point. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The celtic wiki is quite bias but I think those results are all correct, although their is also soccerbase which is already on the page, I think a table of matches should go back to the formation of the SPL otherwise where would you stop. What do you think about the biggest wins their is only about 3 or 4 each but if we only put the 1 in then their shouldn't be 3 sections on it. Adam4267 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello monkeyman i started the head to head table, you can help edit it if you want to. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that monkeyman. Adam4267 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! I'll be looking forward to it. Guy546^(Talk) 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Artoasis's talk page.
Message added 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Craig Whyte at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article seems mostly ready to go bt as a first time reviewer im not inclined to let it pass althouigh the 2x is barely less than necessary. so if you can then add a little more and ill certainly give my whole support.Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay nice. ill give my signature of approval

although there seems to be an edit war (vandalism?) which is 3rr already..(Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

On 18 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Craig Whyte, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Scottish businessman Craig Whyte bought the controlling interest in Rangers Football Club from David Murray for £1? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 09:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Crystal Clear x3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Crystal Clear x3 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Crystal Clear x3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Crystal Clear x3 05:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there MONKEYMAN, VASCO from Portugal here,

don't know what wrong does it make to write the truth (both RANGERS and CELTIC are what i wrote, powerhouses, giants, whatever you want to call it - internally that is), you removed it OK, am not going to edit war over that.

Also, an anon "user" reverted me for referencing the fact that Ortiz played RB and LB at UD Almería (it's "included" in his transfer source), what's wrong with these people?

Keep up the good work, attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion but wikipedia is not the place for Weasel words please see WP:WEASEL. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I never thought of it as a WEASEL word. Thanks for your input! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And sorry for writing again "powerhouse", i copy/pasted my version after the abovementioned user did that in the ref, and forgot to correct the "evil" word, i see that you already took care of that :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Green Brigade. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Drmies (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are in breach of Wikipedia:3RR on this page. Please self revert to correct this. Adam4267 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for your edit-warring at this page. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Adam4267 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeymanman. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a notice on the talkpage to advise that if a user wishes to comment te the charge then there comments should be added to the debate at Wikipedia:BLPN as I noticed you hadn't advised the other user that they could. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football a new Football In Scotland task force has been set up as you edit Scottish football articles i would like to invite you to become a member if you wish. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but at the moment i dont think i have sufficient time to give any serious help. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_seriously_disruptive_case_of_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Monkeymanman, I would like to point out to you that the quote in the text from The Age (Melbourne newspaper) is not actually from Neil Lennon. It is what the paper itself has actually said when describing Celtic.

"a club with such a huge and fanatical supporter base and century-long track record of success on its own turf" [1]

Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to directly quote Lennon. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ian Bankier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Bankier, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ian Bankier became Celtic F.C.'s 15th chairman in the club's 123-year history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Bankier.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monkeymanman, please do not WP:TAGBOMB articles such as you did at Ki Sung-Yueng. If you feel the article has problems then feel free to resolve them yourself. However, WP:OVERTAGGING articles, especially ones that you have not contributed to youreself, can be seen as unhelpful and disruptive.

Thanks, Adam4267 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm still new to everything Wiki however can you tell me the procedure for putting a complaint in on an editor? I won't name names however this particular editor is holding up consensus being reached and is constantly dismissing reliable sources due to it not agreeing with their POV. BadSynergy (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know about edit warring and 3RR and it has been difficult putting up with bias editors and their sly remarks. It's just been frustrating for me and other editors dealing with editors who are basing their arguments on POV. I am not long back from taking a break from wikipedia however this Rangers mess has left me feeling drained! Hopefully it can get sorted soon so I can focus on other articles and subjects. Thanks for the info. BadSynergy (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monkeyman, I raised concerns about the state of this article a while ago on the talk page and informed Chris Cunningham. I've also asked at the Rangers FC talk page if anyone wanted to try and improve it but no-one has improved it so I've nominated it for reassessment. I thought you were off Wiki at the time of me raising it so I didn't message your talk page. Anyway if you're interested in trying to keep the article at GA I have left some notes but I think overall there is little chance of it meeting the criteria in the near future. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i´ve left you a reply on the articles talk page. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

.. also want to inform Getefane [[2]] of the ANI as he was the one most affected by what went on. 220.255.1.158 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

The article Fire Bay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable film with little to no coverage, does not meet WP:NF

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 22:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Al Pacino (estimated annual readership: 2,818,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Al Pacino to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of David Somers (Scottish businessman) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been over two weeks since you were notified, and no action has been taken. Regrettably, we're going to have to close the nomination if you don't respond very soon. I hope you see this reminder before then. Good luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2014 (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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Louis theroux.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]