{{unblock-auto|Autoblockedbecause your IP address was recently used by "Mrstixgamez". The reason given for Mrstixgamez's block is: "vandalism, see also edit filter log".|Materialscientist|7644649}}

Is this autoblock still affecting you? I see you've made an article edit since. only (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only — not anymore. Thank you for taking care of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys. Thanks for restarting the discussion regarding F1 season article names. I just wanted to clarify your current proposal. Are you proposing renaming (a) all the F1 season articles, (b) all except 1952/1953, or (c) just the ones where there were no non-championship races (i.e. 1984 onwards). Or are you offering all three as options for the project to discuss? Earlier discussions have also included the idea of splitting the pre-1984 seasons into a "championship" article and an "overview" article, following the "Supercars" model. Are you still proposing that? (FWIW, I would support that). I thought I would ask this here, to avoid "muddying" the new discussion. But having said that, I'm happy for my question to be copied into the new discussion if you think it would be helpful. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DH85868993 — I'm trying to keep it as open as possible for the time being. I really tried to summarise my concern in the simplest manner possible. I think the best way forward in the discussion is to manage concerns as they arise rather than trying to anticipate them and cover them off in advance.

Personally, I favour the "Supercars model" for all pre-1984 articles. It's simple, used in other articles effectively, and keeps the consistency that other people desire. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i am new to this, and thankyou for correcting me.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at 2011_World_Rally_Championship#Statistics and 2010_World_Rally_Championship#Statistics. So you can't say that we don't include this kind of statistics. I also think it's good overview. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — those statistics tables never should have been included in those articles in the first place. Wikipedia is not (and was never intended to be) a compilation of statistics. League tables are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't just remove content like that. Put it into voting then. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — we don't vote on issues. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it's an encyclopaedia, and its policies clearly state that it is not a place to accumulate statistics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have read it wrong, so i'm gonna copy it here: Wikipedia is not Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

Those statistics 1) are in context 2) didn't reduce readability 3) are not confusing. I wonder how would people react if you remove stats from here or anywhere here. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — they are excessive. Worse, they're completely redundant. The tables contain the following columns: starts, finishes, wins, podiums, stage wins and points. The results table already shows all of this information, albeit in a different form; better yet, it shows which position each competitor finished in for every start they made. The only thing the results table does not include is stage wins, but there is no value to a stage win, so there is no point including them because they are just trivia. No context or explanatory text is included and thus they do not enhance readability. Hence, their continued inclusion is because you like it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have not added any tables anywhere. You should check history of those articles. They were updated after each rally. So maybe do a quick research befere accusing anybody. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They never should have been included in the first place. Their presence does not guarantee their continued inclusion. And you haven't addressed my point that they only repeat content that is addressed elsewhere in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Lineslarge. Prisonermonkeys, thanks for creating 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article would benefit from referencing more than one source.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Lineslarge (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep adding your misleading personal POV to the title of that RSN subject which was created by another editors and which has already been commented upon. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about BOTH of you stopping editing that discussion and let outside people weigh? I have explicitly gone there NOT to continue the discussion between the three of us.Tvx1 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula One World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but if you have to cut a major character out of the plot to get it to fit, then you're doing it wrong. This movie is very long, I think we can forgive it going a little over. --Tarage (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage — Joi might be a major character, but she's not important to the plot. You can understand the events of the story without understanding her role. Joi is really there because she is key to the themes of the film—that it doesn't matter if K or Deckard are human or replicant; they accept the reality that is presented before them. If you include Joi, why not discuss the significance of Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire, the references to W.B. Yeats or the platinum-blonde prostitute? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with you on that one. The entire fact that they are only able to track her because of the sex scene is proof alone. All I'm saying is, if she's a title character, you shouldn't remove her. Find other ways to trim it. --Tarage (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage — the tracking of K could be done in one sentence without mentioning Joi at all. And you still haven't answered my question: why not mention Nabokov, Yeats or the prostutute? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't title characters. --Tarage (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage — Joi isn't a title character. The film is called Blade Runner 2049, not Joi. Her role in the film is to explore the key themes, which is exactly what the references to Nabokov and Yeats do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other people on the talk page have to say... --Tarage (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: Another reading separate from both of your versions is that Joi represents an "alter ego" for K in the film, as a way to allow K the express his thoughts and motives to the film audience. If this simpler version of her place in the film is usable, then the current plot can be shortened to reduce mention of her to being limited to representing a way for K to introduce his motives and actions as they are relevant to the film plot. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know why you are posting this here and not on the talk page of the article itself. 2. I disagree that Joi represents an "alter ego". 3. Even if she was, I disagree that this means she isn't plot relevant. 4. Don't ping me. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The film is called Blade Runner 2049, not Joi." LoL this makes me wonder though, perhaps if the studio had named it Joi instead of Blade Runner 2049 it might have done better domestic box office? Or just confuse people expecting Jennifer Lawrence? "Is that her flying in a spinner? I thought she was sellin mops. Why she wearing that mop on her head."  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  15:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in the discussion about the order of the Toro Rosso drivers on the page: 2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship. Unfortunately we have been unable to resolve this issue and I have decided to take this to DRN. Given your involvement in this discussion, I have included yourself on the list of involved users. You can find the information of the dispute below. Thanks.

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent ... it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." Messages notifying other users of ongoing talk page discussions should be neutral and factual; do your arguing on the discussion page itself. Your message at WP:F1 finished with the sentence "It's a clear violation of WP:SOURCEACCESS, and one that threatens all of our articles." This is not neutral. This is your opinion, coupled to am emotive and absurd claim that the discussion "threatens" all of "our" articles, and is a clear attempt to rally support for your viewpoint. This is simply not cool, and has been so for a very long time. Pyrope 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ford Fiesta WRC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WRC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM. I notice that you've used Template:WRC race report in 2018 Monte Carlo Rally. Should I take this an indication that it suits your needs (and I should therefore delete the similar template I created yesterday)? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DH85868993 — Sorry, forgot to send you a message about this. I was experimenting with the old one, but to be honest, I prefer yours better. Do you have the markup that goes into the article available? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For 2018 Monte Carlo Rally it would be:

{{Rally succession box
| Year_of_rally            = 2018
| Name_of_rally            = {{nowrap|[[Monte Carlo Rally|Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo]]}}
| Previous_rally_in_season = [[2017 Rally Australia|26th Rally Australia]]
| Next_rally_in_season     = [[2018 Rally Sweden|66th Rally Sweden]]
| Previous_year's_rally    = {{nowrap|[[2017 Monte Carlo Rally|85ème Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo]]}}
| Next_year's_rally        = {{nowrap|[[2019 Monte Carlo Rally|87ème Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo]]}}
}}

but it might make more sense to just tweak the existing template. I think I actually prefer Template:WRC race report's less complicated parameter names (i.e. year, event_name, previous_event, next_event, previous_year, next_year). I don't think it would be good to have two very similar templates. DH85868993 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DH. I understand your concerns, but I think that with enough time, this template will take over from the previous one. I've already made wholesale changes to the format of rally reports at 2018 Monte Carlo Rally; the plan is to roll everything out so that it can simply be carried over from one article to the next. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've created the template documentation page (I had been holding off doing that in case we decided the template was unnecessary - one less thing to delete). Enjoy! DH85868993 (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM. When I added the new parameters to Template:Infobox rally, I mistakenly thought the "1" parameters (i.e. driver1, codriver1, team1, time1) referred to the winning crew, the "2" parameters referred to the second-placed crew and the "3" parameters referred to the third-placed crew. This is also why I named the power stage parameters powerstage_driver1, powerstage_codriver_1 and powerstage_team1 - I thought the "1" indicated "winner". However, I see from this edit of yours that the "2" parameters actually refer to the WRC-2 winning crew and the "3" parameters refer to the WRC-3 winning crew. (I probably should have guessed that). So the "1"s at the end of the power stage parameters are probably unnecessary. Would you like me to remove the "1"s, before those parameters are used in any articles? DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DH85868993 — I doubt it will matter much. There's only two or three editors who work on WRC articles. If you feel a change is needed, go ahead; if not, the template is workable as it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johannes275 here, and I would just like to say that your format of the overall report for the Monte Carlo Rally page is extremely good, very informative as an article. I was wondering if we can continue to use this format for all of the rallies in the 2018 season.

@Johannes275 — that's the plan. I want to put equal emphasis on the WRC, WRC-2 and WRC-3 as they are all World Champuonships. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Monte Carlo Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shakedown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Italia Sardegna is the actual name of the event since 2011, not Rally d'Italia or Rally d'Italia Sardegna. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2018 (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. tlhIngan 01:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volkswagen Polo R WRC you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Volkswagen Polo R WRC you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Volkswagen Polo R WRC for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the film? Loki offers the Tesseract as a distraction for Hulk to attack. "We have a Hulk!" Hulk is defeated first, Thanos picks up the Tesseract, Loki attempts a double cross then is killed. starship.paint ~ KO 06:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint — yes, I have seen the film. I am also aware that a plot summary should be succint; MOS:FILM suggests between 400 and 700 words (while there are exceptions, I don't think the film qualifies for any). The tricky part is that the film is basically a two and a half hour epilogue to previous films and assumes the audience has seen most, if not all of them in advance—but that is a luxury we don't have. Yes, we need to explain Hulk's presence aboard the ship, but we are not looking for a blow-by-blow account of the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The key issue I have is not Hulk's presence, but Loki's offering of the Tesseract. To me it is clear that it was a feint to enable Hulk. However previously written it seems like Loki was really gave the Tesseract to Thanos. starship.paint ~ KO 08:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint — ultimately the particulars don't matter unless they have some bearing on the plot, and in this case it doesn't. Thanos attacks the ship to get the Power Stone and leaves with the Power Stone. How he gets it doesn't really matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: could you please stop making edits such as this one? This quite literally adds nothing to the article except extra words. Worse, it is poorly-phrased and undermines the quality of the entire section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just trying to improve the article starship.paint ~ KO 01:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot go over 700 words without talk-page consensus. Please stop ignoring WP:FILMPLOT

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.R9tgokunks ✡ 09:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not vandalism. As per WP:FILMPLOT, the word count must be under 700 words. You need a WP:CONSENSUS to go over 700. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You aren't using a word counter. If you did you would know it's already below 700. Stop blindly reverting. R9tgokunks ✡ 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

700 words is a guideline. It's actually a range - 400 to 700 words. We have 700 words to work with, but that doesn't mean that we need 700. Your edits over-emphasise the use of the time stone, implying its significance for the sequel, which is speculative.

Also, calling edits you disagree with "vandalism" is bad faith. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you joking? I'm not implying anything. "Thanos reverses time..."? There is no implication about the sequel and it's absurd for you to glean that from the passage. I was adding a very important segment of the film and the "Time Stone" was only an aspect of it.

Also, you can't revert three times on a faulty argument and then try to use a different argument for the reversions. They were blind reversions done without consulting the actual word count. R9tgokunks ✡ 09:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange makes it pretty clear that reversing time has unintended consequences (if not outright paradoxes). By reversing time, Thanos has clearly done something, but that something has not been seen yet. You don't know what that something is, so by pointing out the use of the time stone, you are pointing out the significance of that something.

Your edits do not add "a very important section of the film" because a) you don't know the significance of it and b) you're only repeating something that the section has already established (that destroying the mind stone will kill Vision).

Once again, the word count is a guideline. There is nothing to say that it must be 700 words, and adding details for the sake of reaching 700 words is just padding out an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is Wikipedia. Not the MCU fan wiki. The ins and outs of the Marvel films don't matter here. In regards to a plot for this film and only this film, objectively, Thanos does indeed reverse time on Vision to obtain the Mind Stone. (Rewatching it makes this emphasis even more apparent via the visual effects.) I don't care about the fun facts of the Marvel films and the lore associated. I only care about giving an accurate description, and that's what it does. R9tgokunks ✡ 09:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the connections between all of the films, yes it does matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Fury calling Captain Marvel: meh. The good guys knew there was something up with Infinity Stones back in Age of Ultron, and there's nothing in this film that implies Fury knew who Thanos even was: Banner informs Stark of both Thanos and the search for the stones at the beginning of this film, in a manner that implies Stark would have no frame of reference for Thanos, and then Stark and Strange are barely out of the audience's site until they go to space (and we're even explicitly told that they are out of mobile service); it's possible Wong called Fury and the latter decided that if everyone suddenly dies it means Thanos has the stones and he should page Captain Marvel, but... Honestly, I prefer to think of the mid- and post-credits scenes as showing a truncated, "metaphorical" version of what "actually happens" within the universe: pretty much everything Jackson says in them is clearly written in a manner meant more to communicate to audiences rather than how someone would realistically talk. In fact, if one takes the Age of Ultron "I'll do it myself" scene literally Thanos was after the stones years ago but apparently put no effort into attaining them, since he was able to get all six with ease in the space of a few days. It's probably best to take this film as eliminating from continuity the few hints that, for example, he sent Loki to earth to retrieve the Tesseract for him because it contained one of the Infinity Stones: it already explicitly tells us that the scene of Thanos taking the Infinity Gauntlet out of some sort of vault either (a) was a meaningless scene of him acquiring a fake gauntlet, or (b) no longer happened as depicted. It makes me miss the days of "The Consultant" where they came up with these elaborate explanations for how the inconsistencies aren't inconsistencies at all: those were legitimately fun. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 April 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 10:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 MotoGP season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hafizh Ahmeed (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Red Dead Redemption 2. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The source you provided did not corroborate about what you wrote about Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, please do not make edits like these. TheDeviantPro (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to loosen your grip on the article. My edits were clearly made in good faith, especially since the source provided is used in a similar context elsewhere. We all have our pet projects on Wikipedia, but that does not mean that we own the articles. It's one thing to review edits, but quite another thing to suggest any edit you dislike is vandalism, disruptive or otherwise made in bad faith. It looks like you're trying to shut others out of the editing process. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did they really start co-driver's championship in 2003? Do you have a source? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10 — no, it's been going for (roughly) as long as the drivers' championship. I started making the article but got distracted. I had to save what I had and come back to it later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No offense was intended but I came across the page through WP:NPP and waited more than 10 minutes after your last edit before reverting (which is what is generally recommended for that process). I had no idea if you were done making the page or not. In case you missed my edit summary, drafting the page in user or draft spaces and bringing it over, citations and content in hand, can be a good way to avoid this sort of situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2018 Formula One World Championship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Sorry for the template, but I have to be fair to both of you and treat you two the same. I templated Mayerroute5, I have to do it to you as well....... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — sorry about that. The article (and a related article) has been getting a lot of activity in the markup of late. Some of it is very disruptive because only parts of the markup have been changed, which breaks the article. Mayerroute5 has only just started commenting in the past 20 minutes or so, so I was under the impression that I was dealing with a vandal. He's been behaving in exactly the same way as an IP editor who made a series of unjustified edits, then used the same language in his edit summaries. Some of the disruptive editing from the IP has coincided with his recent block. I moved to the article talk page as soon as it became apparent that disruption might not be his intention. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, man... shit happens and nobody is perfect. I'm just watching out for you but also trying to be fair and not play favorites... you know? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — I appreciate it; I really do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That means a lot to hear that. I appreciate it very much... thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — could you please take a look at Mayerroute5's recent activity? His idea of discussing changes is to demand to see a consensus whilst making a series of edits [1] [2] [3] [4] in another, related article that changes the markup, but once again he makes no attempt at discussing the edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys - Sure. I'm going to finish up a few things on my "to do" list, and I'll be happy to take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit son... I can definitely understand how frustrating it's probably been to participate and edit this article over the last few weeks... lol. The page history shows a bunch of additions, then reverts, then additions, then reverts, and over and over... just do your best to keep yourself out of that cycle if you can (even though I know it's very hard).

I know that it feels like Mayerroute5's response and question on the article's talk page asking where that "note" discussion is at feels rhetorical and adds to the overall frustration going on, but honestly... the best thing you can do right now and before you do anything else? Answer his question and provide him the location of that discussion. It'll help him to realize that there is a consensus that needs to be followed and will (hopefully) result in you two working with one another instead of against one another. Aside from this, just be careful with reverting edits on that article and if it can be helped, avoid it. The changes are small, and definitely not something you want to get into a quarrel or an edit war (and subsequently get yourself in hot water) over. And if anything, if he is in fact not editing to reflect consensus, someone else is absolutely bound to notice and will fix it ;-).

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, or if you need any more of my input or... if you just want to talk. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me and add a discussion there any time you need to. I hope my response was of some help, and I wish you good luck with all of the frustration here. Above all other things, just remember to keep your cool and ask for help (like you did here) instead of charging in. It will always reflect a favorable outcome and keep you viewed upon as "in the right" when everyone else is pointing fingers and revering the article like a bunch of savages, and you're the one with a patient hand and a positive mouth. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — there isn't an explicit discussion where the use of "[note #]" was accepted. It's really been more of an edit-consensus combined with a broad consensus to improve accessibility for mobile and tablet users ("[N #]" is a small target when you have to physically touch it to read it). I'm willing to bet Mayerroute5 wants a discussion that contains THIS IS THE CONSENSUS in big, bold letters because he knows he won't get it and he won't have to accept anything other than it.

The F2 article does have a consensus to recreate the style of the F1 article wherever possible because they're related, so I suspect Mayerroute5 has made the changes to the F1 article to justify the changes to the F2 article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — it's now been three days since Mayerroute5 made the edits in question. He has not participated in discussions on the talk page (except to demand evidence of a consensus), made any attempt to refute the arguments and a third party has pointed out that an edit-consensus applies. In light of this, would it be acceptable if I were to restore the original markup? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys - I would update the discussion on Mayerroute5's user talk page and let them know that you're doing this and that you're still looking to discuss the matter when they return. Aside from this, so long as the content being restored doesn't violate policy - I don't see why not :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — done. Restoring edits now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'll guarantee that I won't make any more edits to the F1 or the F2 articles without attempting to establish a new consensus. That said, no other users except you have a problem with the use of [N#] since you're the only one who kept changing it, and it doesn't show anywhere there was a previous consensus agreed upon for the use of [note#] over [N#], and. Also, why exactly do you prefer the use of [note#] over [N#]? Mayerroute5 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you, an edit-consensus applies. If you're looking for a discussion where there is a declaration in big, bold letters that says WE HAVE A CONSENSUS AND IT IS THIS, you're not going to find one—not just for this subject, but across Wikipedia.

I have also outlined why I prefer to use of "[note #]" on both the F1 and F2 talk pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2018 (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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Corvus tristis (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Volkswagen Polo R WRC you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Volkswagen Polo R WRC for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've finally learned that all this conflict was your fault the whole time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobboSchmobbo (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilliam — do you mind taking a look at this, please? I'm Prisonermonkeys and I forgot my password a while ago. This editor, BobboSchmobbo, appears to be a sock of GeoJoe1000, an editor who blamed me for his being permanently blocked when he went on a rampage of swearing and abuse. He has come back every now and again, harrassing me over it. 1.129.108.240 (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to find a Checkuser to determine if the editor is a sock or not. Hope that helps– Gilliam (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gillam — BobboSchmobbo is a recently-registered editor who has had no interaction with Prisonermonkeys. My account has not been active in months, and yet BobboSchmobbo's only comments have been in reference to "all this conflict". How could he have any knowledge of that alleged conflict if he was a genuinely new editor? What's more, he's not the first rookie editor to post on this talk page referencing some kind of conflict with Prisonermonkeys that ended before that rookie editor registered; GuyPerson01 made this edit a few months ago. Even if BobboSchmobbo is not a sock of GeoJoe1000, his behaviour is clearly suspicuous. For that reason alone I have put in a request for indefinite protection to this page. 1.129.108.114 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I see BobboSchmobbo has been blocked as one of GeoJoe1000's socks. Hardly surprising.

For the record, none of this was my fault. I never made GeoJoe1000 disrupt articles. I never made him swear, and I never made him abuse anyone. Everything he did, he did of his own free will because he couldn't get his own way. And yet here we are over a year later and he just cannot leave it alone. Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Everybody else has moved on. Nobody remembers. Nobody cares. 1.144.104.218 (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, is this a joke?? Why on earth are you having a round of repeatedly reverting yourself using two of the IP's you have recently been using?Tvx1 23:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — no, not a joke. It's someone else. Why would I repeatedly revert myself? The series is Australian and I'm Australian, so chances are it's someone else in the same city as I am using a dynamic IP. If you look at the IP who made the first two edits, it's one that I haven't used before. 1.144.110.143 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, strange that someone else would be dealt an IP only you have used before though.Tvx1 15:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, yes, but that's what happened. Why on earth would I constantly revert myself for weeks, then put in an RFP for the article? And how could I fix it so that I was alternating between the two IPs for each edit?

Like I said, if you look at the edit histories of the other IP, they have also edited other articles related to Australia. It's probably just someone in the same city as me. 1.129.111.49 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. 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]

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 World Rally Championship, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Australian Grand Prix has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]