Wanted to say kudos for your edits on the newly approved Tyler Ward article. I am a very newbie & had been struggling with it for some time. I went today to try & fix the 'Julia Sheer' and BAMO.. already done. :) Great efforts & kudos on the new article. Dee03z (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Xiahou Ba has not been officially revealed by Famitsu, and if he's not shown on any fansites (e.g KoeiWarriors), or the official Koei site(s), then he has not been officially confirmed. What's the reason that Koei Europe added him to their page and then soon removed him? They most likely made a mistake. Not to mention, he was revealed as Jin when he really has nothing to do with that faction. Please do not add characters unless it's 100% definite that they're in the game. 93.96.45.247 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then put a source showing where he's confirmed as none of the other sites show it. And I'll say what I want, got it? I seem to lack the understanding on how it works? Coming from the guy who put a character who's hard to find on being confirmed... Don't give me that crap. 93.96.45.247 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'wrong' considering he was never officially confirmed. And you seem to say to me 'don't edit it all'. Well that's not up to you. Anyways, end of discussion. 93.96.45.247 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pretty silly trolls who vandalise on the page yeah, lol. But c'mon, vandalising a page about a not very well known game? Sheesh they could do better >_>. It's cool - and yeah I figured since most of your edits sound more coherent than that :P Yinyanglightningthrash (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joetri10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tyler Ward. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I've reverted your reversion of my earlier edit. As you said, he does feature Alex G. on a single, and that's great - however, we can't make statements like "Tyler is known to promote other artists" unless a reliable source has said that verbatim. Otherwise, we risk synthesis and original research - things that an encyclopedia has to avoid.

Please don't change this particular section back unless you've got a verifiable, reliable source to back it up. Feel free to let me know if there's something you don't understand or would like clarified.

Best, m.o.p 20:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity. What is going to happen to Caterham next week? Tvx1 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final signings and/or agreements within final signings of one (Or both) drivers. Whether this makes public news right away is undisclosed. The news comes live from one of the drivers in the frame (Kobayashi) Joetri10 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting edits on the 2014 season page. There is a consensus in favour of ordering the tables by number. No matter how weak you think that consensus is, and no matter how much you disagree with it, you do not have the right to ignore it or override it. If you wish to change the format of the table, you will need a new consensus first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some research for you which demonstrates that numerical sorting is NOT the same as Constructors' sort User:Falcadore/sandbox3. --Falcadore (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it. The table looks horrible and the page looks lousy with it on there. End of discussion Joetri10 (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Tyler Ward, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Attempts to turn this article back into a chatty page full of irrelevant and poorly referenced factoids, all of the promotional kind, will be reverted. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "As for the information to keep; it has been accepted for use when originally written." Eh, are you saying that you're part of this YouTuber's promotion machine? Drmies (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please listen to what other experienced Wikipedians tell you about this. Our articles are not for promotional purposes. Do you have a connection with the subject? --John (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional in anymore of the sense that the rest of Wikipedia is. You may find parts stand out that you don't like because of lack of other information to bulk. This is simply not fair when other pages in similar manner holds extremely similar information bulked with much more information to flesh it out.

Also, "Experience" should not be shoved in my face for my to sit either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs)

It is nothing to do with "bulk", nor can we use the poor state of other articles to justify problems with this one. Please do not edit Wikipedia in a promotional way. Do you have a connection with the subject? --John (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Biographies of living persons, good to know Wikipedia rules fot the subject. Hafspajen (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted this, you might want to put your side. Regards, Burgring (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is mental. Cheers. Joetri10 (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a nonsense. I have been accused of being a sock-puppet of the same user. This is getting out of hand. Every user who disagrees with Prisonermonkeys cannot be a sock-puppet of this one user. It is ridiculous. I am concerned by this is the attitude. Just how many false positives could there have been in relation to this? Sport and politics (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation towards me lasted about 5 days and I was rather offended that it even happened, half of what he accused me of was extremely vague at best. I can believe he's done this more than once to be honest. Maybe he's really DeFacto?, who knows haha. He surely can't keep doing this though. There has to be a point where someone figures it out. *JoeTri10_ 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have come across the same self centred and sanctimonious approach I received from Prisonermonkeys. I believe Prisonermonkeys to be a major obstacle to the wider Wikipedia editing community contributing to Formula One articles in general. Something needs to be done about these attitude, jumping to conclusions and speediness to own articles. They are very quick to attack and are a general purpose bully when it comes to the talk page. Something needs doing in order to allow the wider community to contribute to these articles without one user stopping everything they dislike and causing long winded and frankly heel dragging talk page discussions. They will find any tiny loophole to claim there point of view is still the only one which can be accepted. This is just not on and in wholly unacceptable n my opinion.

What are your thoughts?

Sport and politics (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted a few times towards him that his attitude is somewhat BRRR and I still feel that Is exactly what he does. He has shoved multiple Wikipedia ruling articles in my face and although one could fit my behavior to such things, that result was only fished out of me due to the long winded nature of himself not really explaining anything and more-so trying to prove a point and he ends up reiterating it a bunch of times. He doesn't appear one to be in favor of helping the page progress but more in favor of being able to label it his and to be able to say that he made it. If he finds it slipping he does just loophole everything, force a conversation forward, ignore certain aspects of opposition in hopes that someone has forgotten or have not noticed it. The 3 main things I have tried to do on there have been so long winded due to him and it shouldn't have been that way. The biggest issue Is in the eyes of ruling, he's doing nothing wrong because he is indeed loopholing. It's a valid point that the flag sizes will break the chart, an easier solution would to have fixed it straight off and Maguus was explaining it whilst PM is just sort of there like a sore thumb.

I mean I dunno what to do really, he does my head in. All I wanted to do was satisfy the request made by Aerospeed and now I'm getting crap back in my face (again) *JoeTri10_ 14:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are driving (excuse the pun) editors from contributing. We cannot be the only two editors he is like this too. In my opinion this needs investigating furthers as Wikilawyering and POV pushing are seriously frowned up on Wikipeida. All I want to do is edit an article with out someone who believes they own it jumping up and down and having a bullying tantrum and resorting to wild and absurd claims of being a sock-puppet. This users is an obstacle now. While they do add positively to the article they only change when forced to change. The most absurd thing I had was when it was suggested a blog F1Fanatic was no longer used. He went ballistic and claimed i was an idiot and it was perfectly fine and that the BBC was shit because one article had been used from them which was subsequently updated and not updated on the page fast enough. This user is a total menace at times, with a huge control freak complex.

Here is some light reading of past "discussions" with this user: Indian Grand Prix and sources, Use of a personal website and blog as the primary source for part of this article, Manual archiving, "(Name) Grand Prix" vs. "Grand Prix of (Name)". Sport and politics (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because that's major contradiction looking at the Sirotkin case as he would never accept blogs as a source because Adam Cooper (the man behind said blog) didn't work for f1 ignoring that he's been reporting from the paddock and track since the early 90's. Though I was pushing it despite that same rule you are against, I did it so he could see just how many sites reported about Sirotkin whilst trying to explain that the situation he was in could not be official reported upon due to legal reasons. he was absolutely dead set on having his name confirmed right up the very end where he obviously didn't get the spot and even to this day it's not fully explained why due to legal reasons. He was seriously determined to hold on to extremely outdated sources which for F1 documenting during Silly Season is rather illogical. He doesn't give anyone much leeway for someone to try and explain to him certain situations which is what happened on your last link there, I was involved in that at the end also and it seriously gave me a headache. I'm really not sure what we could achieve by reporting him unless we can find a lot of cases of this random behavior elsewhere. *JoeTri10_ 16:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is the basis for a case of article ownership. I think this is classic behaviour regarding article ownership and article ownership is banned by Wikiepida. Sport and politics (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is very prone to edit even the slightest of information that Is rightfully added. He modifies it for his own words. Normally his edit is more correctly worded but not in every case. It's your case more so than mine, you're more adept at using Wikipedia and it's ruling but I'll support your case nonetheless. Whether it gains positive purpose however is up in the air. *JoeTri10_ 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:2014 Formula One season#Race titles. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, please be very careful when accusing people of breaking OWN. It is quite a serious accusation to make. If you are getting this from "Sport and politics", please take the time to look at some of the discussions she referred you to, and some of her contributions. She is very, very quick to accuse others of breaking OWN, particularly when they disagree with her. This sets a dangerous precedent, and the case could be made that it is a violation of OWN in itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TVX1, are you honestly having a go at me for that when you said and I quote "Prisonermonkeys, of course! And since Prisonermonkeys apparently runs the project everybody has to abide by that user's will" Both guys needs to get your sh*t together. *JoeTri10_ 06:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between disagreeing with an editor whilst assuming good faith, and disagreeing with an editor whilst assuming bad faith. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly didn't have that in mind when you consider my approaches. at least I'm telling you to your face what I think instead of reporting me to people because [Blank] *JoeTri10_ 08:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that your behaviour was extremely similar to that displayed by DeFacto. And previous experience with DeFacto - who has over seventy confirmed accounts - has taught everyone who has dealt with him that letting him know that we have identified one of his accounts results in extreme disruptions. You might not be DeFacto, but I have identified a dozen of his accounts, and so the fact that your behaviour fooled me into believing that you were DeFacto is extremely serious. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to people who reviewed me, I showed no serious signs of that. It's like saying a cat is masquerading as a dog because it's walking on all fours. There's more to it than just that. I'm sure you have; and of course by that you mean just threw random darts at people you didn't agree on hoping for a balls eye. How many people haven't turned out to be Defacto? Hmm? *JoeTri10_ 08:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were the first. And to date, only. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This boils down quite simply to Prisonermonkeys the Paranoid owner of HIS formula one pages. Prisonermonkeys is the real problem user here by trying to chase away every user who disagree with them and threatening them with ridiculous investigations that they are all sock-puppets of some random user who he is convinced is out to get him and tear up HIS articles. Sport and politics (talk)

And you are the one who accuses people of breaking OWN the moment they dare to disagree with you. You do not allow discussion; you barge into a talk page, pass judgement on an issue, and demand that people observe that judgement without any further discussion. Which, I suppose, breaks OWN itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. Above is a typical bully approach from Prisonermonkeys and demonstrates their ownership behaviour. Time for Prisonermonkeys to give it a rest. All of the above 52 words above are just pure rubbish. The amount of rubbish which the Formula One pages endure as a result of Prisonermonkeys are insane. He will add things and the go nuts if it is removed and cause massive unwieldy talk page discussions and use every loophole they can think of to continue the discussion and never admit they are wrong, were wrong, or that consensus is against them. Prisonermonkeys is just a bully and someone who think they know best and only what they say goes. Sport and politics (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have checked your contributions. You have performed the same trick on other articles, articles I did not even know existed until I checked those contributions. How do you explain that? How do you explain the way nothing less than absolute, unquestioning submission to your opinion is the only way to satisfy your demands? It never looks good when someone can take the argument you just made, swap the name in it for your name, and have everything apply to you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "tricks" you are on about. You are making things up and using confirmation bias to attempt to further that you dislike me or worse you are attempting to smear me to divert away from yourself. Other users not just me are pointing out you do not run these articles. Simply stop thinking and acting like you do and then there will be no issues. You will also have to be a lot more specific that just making the above wild claims with vague phrasing that "tricks" are being used. You are simply looking like you are phishing for me to to do something that will affirm your confirmation bias. This is petty and frankly very sad editing behaviour. Sport and politics (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Formula One teams. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure *JoeTri10_ 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this warning even relate to? *JoeTri10_ has made no edits whatsoever on Template:Formula One teams! Tvx1 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made two reverts on PM's edit that removed the official title column. [1] the same one he warned you of hours later. *JoeTri10_ 13:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those edits weren't made on Template:Formula One teams, were they?

Ah, I see what you mean now. It's a different thing entirely (Something I didn't know existed). I guess he was so giddy for the chance to warn me again that he made the mistake. *JoeTri10_ 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2014 Formula One season". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the tenth point, generally numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words per WP:NUMERAL. Ten and above can be done as integers or words; for instance, in the past, for specific good articles that I have contributed to, you also look to avoid mixing the two styles in a sentence. For example: 16th and 9th rather than 16th and ninth. Advisable in the terms of the MoS, yes. But, it'll always need looking at [the article that is], due to many unregistered users not being aware of such guidelines. Hope that helps! Regards, Craig(talk) 15:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joetri,

I noticed that when you recently undid edits to the 2014 season page, your edit summary included the following:

"Revert: As stupidly real as this piece of **** news is, Twitter is not a 'credible' source."

I thought I'd post this message to let you know that you should be careful about this sort of thing. I'm sure your intention was to remove the content because of your concerns over Twitter as a reliable source, but when you preface that with comments like "stupidly real" and "piece of **** news", some might see that as you being a fan of Kamui Kobayashi, and upset at his being replaced.

The quality of your edits has improved significantly over the past few months, so please don't give people a reason to question or doubt your intentions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:56, 20 August 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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Britney Spears. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly referenced? It's from her own social media accounts... *JoeTri10_ 03:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After all these years here you should know what counts as a reliable source for BLP information and what doesn't. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't hearsay, the reliable source is from her officially, much like the incident with Joe Lycett. *JoeTri10_ 04:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically we have to wait for her to say what she's already said? *JoeTri10_ 05:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]