User talk:Prisonermonkeys: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 4 December 2017

Autoblock

{{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]

Editing articles

As per WP:TPG, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" — so please leave this alone.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Are you thick? The 2017 Formula One season page is restricted in terms of editing for the championship table. I CAN'T edit it. So you should tell someone to remove the restriction or to edit it more quickly. If you're going to do it, be my guest. Otherwise, shut up. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the standings have to be edited from here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:F1_Drivers_Standings, don't they? You'll have to explain why you have such a complicated system that was not used for any other seasons before this one. Also, I'm not sure why you didn't actually direct me to this page at any point unless your goal was to be completely incompetent. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already figured out you're a dick back in 2014. Just mind your own business and I won't report you to the admins. You have no power here. Don't pretend like you do. Just because you're not as blunt as I am doesn't make your language any less abusive. Don't be a bully. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Prisonermonkeys here. Your editing behavior in the article yesterday was inappropriate. The comments you made should have been made on the talk page and not in the article. In the article they were simply disruptive. Also see WP:DEADLINE. That the tables hadn't been updated a couple of hours after the race did not warrant such behavior. I noticed that they hadn't and I live in the same timezone as Hungary and I would have updated them myself I had the time, but had some family visiting me so I wasn't able to and by the time they had left the update had been made. You are also wrong with your claim regarding the templates. They have been used for years and not just since this season. And Prisonermonkeys wasn't involved in any way in the decision to use them. There also no need to be so abusive against other user of this like you did here and in your edit summaries. Collaborate with other editors instead of berating them.T v x1 15:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys has never been civil with me, and I don't have any respect for his behavior. Once he treats me like a human being, I'll return the favor. At this point, he clearly has no plans to collaborate with me at any point. My plans are to simply not interact with him any more and avoid conflict. That should make things easier for everyone. As for the F1 2017 article, that was my mistake. I made an incorrect assumption, and I will take responsibility for it. I know where to edit the template now, and I plan to do so for future grands prix. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoJoe1000 — you are welcome to edit, provided that your edits are constructive:

I just get the feeling I am not welcome and never will be. For example, "In the meantime, don't go putting this on us because you're unhappy. You have no right to go around vandalising articles and disrupting Wikipedia the way you did, least of all when you made no attempt at inquiring after the problem or fixing it yourself. If an admin had seen it, you'd likely be blocked for it."

I said this because of your response. I pointed out that your initial edits were inappropriate and that there were three other ways of handling the situation. Your response was to attack the policy of keeping the matrix in a template form as if your behaviour was somehow justified and it was the fault of every other editor for coming up with that policy. You then linked to the page where the template is kept, demonstrating that you knew where it was and making the entire episode unnecessary.

And yes, an admin would have blocked you had they seen it. You were uncivil, deliberately disruptive and came dangerously close go violating 3RR.

Personally, I feel as if Prisonermonkeys has no desire to act collaboratively and simply wants me to avoid his pages.

Firstly, they're not my pages. I simply posted on your talk page because I felt something needed to be said and no-one else had done it.

Secondly, I have every intention of acting collaboratively. But you also have to act harmoniously. When I see someone deliberately disrupt an article, make no attempt to resolve the issue through the usual means (ie the article talk page) and attack anyone who approaches them of it, of course I am going to respond poorly to it. If you think that how you have conducted yourself is in any way acceptable, you really do not have any business here. Either an admin will see it and block you, or the wider editing community will work around you instead of with you—because nobody wants to collaborate with someone so hostile—and you'll leave on your own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know as well as I do you're the problem now. You seem to forget I took responsibility for my actions, and unlike you, I'm moving on from this. I hope you improve for the future because you don't need to be so harmful to fellow editors. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the problem. I never was because I never did anything wrong. As for you taking responsibility for your actions, that's to your credit—but it's easy to say and hard to do, so I'll reserve judgement until I see something meaningful in your actions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize avoiding trying to improve as an editor is the problem here, right? Not breaking any rules does not equal not being the problem. Your stubbornness will only breed more conflict, and you are simply wasting other people's time accordingly. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoJoe1000:Not breaking any rules does not equal not being the problem. And yet, that is the exact same point that you failed to grasp when confronted with similar behavior of yours needing "improvement":

This is exactly what Wikipedia says about the sandbox: "[I]t must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights still apply." I have not broken any of these rules. Therefore, all of the material in my sandboxes is legit. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages are not to be used to collect and hold random content. If you cannot demonstrate how your sandbox content is constructive, it could be considered for deletion. Tiderolls 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When asked about a problem which you had created, you argued that since you didn't break any rules, you were "not the problem". But the problem wasn't about you not breaking the rules, it was about you taking actions with your sandboxes which you then were less than truthful about. That explains your shock at discovering the "missing rule". You read only some of the rules, enough of them just to get you, in your mind, off the hook. Editors who really want to improve continue to try to prove that their mental images of how they see the world, their schema, is wrong. Improvement comes from correcting that schema, seeing the world differently, and changing their behavior to suit that new image.

But you aren't interested in correcting behavior, just hiding it. 10 minutes of looking at your actions over the course of 4 years and it becomes plain to see how you only expose as much of yourself to others as you have to. That way you can manufacture the rest. Like your "act" as an editor "just trying to improve." It's gotten you out of a few jams. But for the most part, you'd rather hide what you do and hide how you act towards others, hiding these things just as ruthlessly as you hide your talk pages, wiping clean any visible signs of rot in you and your actions. You prefer to keep around only that which makes you look clean and respectable. But you're not fooling anyone. The glee that you've taken in trying to change the narrative from a disrespectable editor into one who is being persecuted is obvious and laughable. Seeing it, I'm no longer puzzled as to why you hide yourself — it's because you are an awful storyteller. The following exchange from the conversation I quoted above is telling in this regard:

That is a step in the right direction. Now we can move on to your other accounts. Multiple accounts are only permitted in certain instances. Can you explain how your use of multiple accounts meets any of those instances? Tiderolls 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are these instances that you speak of? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can play it that way if you choose, but I will simply have to take the matter to a sockpuppet investigation. Please approach the matter with more honesty. Tiderolls 17:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering honestly. I do not know about this multiple account policy GeoJoe1000 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My question concerned your use of multiple accounts; regardless of your knowledge regarding policy, you need to answer for your multiple accounts. In the event you are actually in the dark: WP:Sockpuppet. Tiderolls 17:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you weren't really in the dark, now were you. All along as you were answering this editors questions, you were claiming not to have any other accounts (which of course you did). The ease with which you flicked like a light switch from truth to falsity is stunning. It shows that for you, the default setting is "falsity". There is no middle ground here. For you, it is "what can I do to get this person to stop questioning my behavior." No one in their right mind should ever take anything you say without a grain of salt. The editor of this talk page should reassure themselves that they are not "part of the problem".—(by talk page watcher)Spintendo^Talk 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo — thank you for posting this. It's nice to see that @GeoJoe1000's behaviour has not gone unnoticed by other editors, especially since I have been concerned that he thinks he can talk his way out of trouble. Six weeks ago he was applauded by an admin for taking responsibility for his actions, but just two days ago he was refusing to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong and instead claimed to be the victim of a personal attack. I'm sure the admin who applauded him would have been very disappointed by his change in demeanour. While I gave GeoJoe1000 the benefit of the doubt at the time, his arrogance in refusing to acknowledge his wrongdoing makes me question the sincerity of his apologies. I see from his edit history that I am not the only editor who has come into conflict with him and his aggressive style of editing, and I noticed that for all his demands that other editors work with him (which I suspect amounts to yielding to him without further question), not once has he offered to work with other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it: I won't work with you. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business editing my talk page because you don't like what was said. Deleting criticism of your behaviour does not make that criricism go away; nor does it make it any less valid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this socking is still going as we speak. On the 2018 season article talk page I see contributions by GeoJoe1000 and GeoJoe10000.T v x1 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — I think he's trying to start afresh as a symbol that he has learnesld from it. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia allows editors to do that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's the notorious impersonator we've been dealing with. The comment on the article talk page is pretty cynical for someone taking a fresh start.T v x1 07:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — I forgot about him. That was damned creepy. But I did notice that GeoJoe1000's talk page was deleted at his request and his user page says that he is retired. So I suspect that GeoJoe10000 is GeoJoe1000 under a new name and the cynical comment is his being unable to help himself with the aggressive editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing whatsoever that demonstrates a user wanting to take a fresh start. I only see a user who franctically and naïvely wants to hide their past misdemeanour. Now they're just blocking Bottas' inclusion just for the sake of it. They are just mocking us.T v x1 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — Oh, I fully agree. I was never under the illusion that he had genuinely changed. Six weeks ago, he was reported to the admins for deliberately disrupting an article (the results matrices for Hungary had not been updated as quickly as he would have liked) and attacking anyone who tried to stabilise the page. He got out of that one by repeatedly apologising and claiming to take responsibility for his actions. Just the other day he was edit-warring and tried the same trick again; when he realised he couldn't apologise his way out, he distracted the admins by claiming the 3RR report was a personal attack and talked his way out of trouble again. I have no doubt that retiring his old account and starting afresh is similarly for show. Despite saying "please" and "thank you" and "have a nice day" in all the right places, the same arrogance, aggression and cynicism is showing through—he's already repeatedly accused us of wanting power over the articles because we disagree with him. I expect it won't be long before he's back to his old tricks, and I'll be very disappointed if the admins fall for it again. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on long enough. If you got yourself blocked, it is nobody's fault but your own. This behaviour has been referred to the Administrator's Noticeboard and may be considered harassment. I don't know what you hope to achieve, but it ends now.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What's going on with this user this morning? They appear to have gone completely berserk.T v x1 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 — nope, he's just online. It's always like this: personal attacks, disruptive editing, accusations of bullying and trying to weasel out of consequences by sweet-talking the admins. For some reason, he seems offended by the idea that there are editors out there who are more knowledgable and experienced than he is. Every time he's online, he's uncivilised; anyone who dares to disagree with him is clearly a bully. It dates all the way back to the day after the Hungarian Grand Prix; the results matrices weren't updated as quickly as he would have liked, so he started deliberately disrupting the page, putting demands for updates into the article. I incurred his wrath when I posted a message on his talk page suggesting that there were other, more appropriate ways of getting stuff done. It's been like this ever since—every time he's online, he's found a new flavour of uncivilised behaviour to share with us. Today it's purging user talk pages of anything that reflects poorly on him because he clearly thinks that he's a shining example of what an editor should be and everyone around him is an idiot. Fortunately, the admins have relieved him of his editing priviliges since they were clearly such a burden to him. No doubt he'll be back eventually, since he was given a dozen warnings that he stubbornly refused to learn from. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original ("sock master") account hasn't been blocked. So I wouldn't assume this has now been dealt with just yet.T v x1 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but given his behaviour, I don't expect him to last much longer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His main complaint with me was that I was bringing stuff up from his past, like that was something I shouldn't have done. A talk page entry about him in 2012 shows that old sins cast long shadows. —Spintendo^Talk 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you delete these kinds of comments from Wikipedia? No wonder editors are so angry: you treat them so poorly. GregJohnson1245 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave them on my talk page at my discretion. I might be blunt at the best of times, but perhaps you should read some of the comments left by the user in question—the unprovoked abuse that he hurled at anyone who dared question him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJohnson1245 "Shouldn't you delete these kinds of comments from Wikipedia? You sound like a bully." You should ask the good people of Wikipedia who tried and failed to work constructively with this editor if they know what a bully sounds like. I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to describe the pervasive coldness and contempt of character that arises from repeated attempts at communication with an individual who, against all decorum, ignores and invalidates their co-editors with stony silence. I'm sure they would leap at being able to describe the sound of an editor who quietly and without explanation scatters bizarre and unhelpful edits across the Wikipedia landscape, for reasons which seem like only purposeful distraction.

It would be important to hear them describe the anxiety and the anger that comes from seeing their hard work and time invested in articles on Wikipedia defaced by another editor for reasons which go unexplained. Actions from an editor who, when confronted with their peers concerns, artfully deflects them off of himself. An editor who then seizes those same concerns and complaints of his peergroup — not to address or validate them — but rather, to pusillanimously construe them into accusations which he could then use to throw back onto the character of others. Make no mistake, these were bullying behaviors meant to invalidate the integrity of the editors he came into conflict with. That editor's actions made a mockery of the content and conventions of the entire Wikipedian-editorial process itself. That this community rose up and fought back against a bully should rightfully be seen as a singular victory in the long-standing war of reasoned colloquy over disputatious and rancorous abuse.—Spintendo^Talk 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo — thank you for the message, but he's already been blocked. He's a brand-new editor whose only edits were directed to you and I, responding to a conversation that ended two weeks ago and critical of us for commenting on GeoJoe's behaviour. He's obviously a sock of GeoJoe. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't give a damn about GeoJoe and never have, but I do want to apologize for my behavior. My personal attacks on you were unwarranted. I don't know you, and I have no reason to believe anything you do on this site is indicative of who you are as a person. I was an angry, abusive editor without a doubt. I was angry because I felt editors like you treated me like dirt and were disrespectful of my opinions. That, of course, is simply my personal opinion, and I should not have taken things so personally in the first place. Wikipedia is not important enough to hate people over. We're all just nameless nobodies here. Again, I'm sorry. You clearly have other arguments to attend to. I have a feeling you should know well that people can change, that a user's history here on Wikipedia is not indicative of a person's character. Good luck with your future endeavors; I know I did a poor job at learning from my mistakes, so I hope you can learn from this.2A00:1838:35:55:0:0:0:3B7A (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard all of this before. The apologies, the show of humility, the claims of taking responsibility and the promise of changing your ways. I was sceptical at the time, and to my disappointment, was proven right. I see no reason to believe that there is anything genuine—much less sincere—in what you say now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. That's the most persuasive evidence yet that you refuse to work with people. Not as if any more evidence was needed considering how much more damage you have been doing just over the last few months. There's more trouble to come. Kudos to the people that care enough about this site to work around you. They have a lot of patience, and they should all be rewarded accordingly for their efforts. In the end, I guess some people at the top of the food chain are just going to let you do what you want. Enjoy that. I guess there aren't enough professional around to stop the inmates from running the prison. Oh well. You know, some guy made the mistake of acting more like you thinking you were a good example of how things get done on this site. Some people don't have the ego needed to be right all the time. Lesson learned. Appreciate the help. Whatashame0 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be able to put this as eloquently as @Spintendo or as concisely as @Tvx1, so I'm not going to try. Instead, I'm just going to be blunt about it: you brought this on yourself and you got everything you deserved. After all, you're the one who abused other editors—"Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit", "You're a complete asshole, and I hope you die" and "Again, fuck you. You are a toxic, worthless human being" were just some of the highlights. That and that alone warranted an immediate block. You were given more opportunities to change your behaviour than most editors get, and you blew every single one of them. Stop blaming others because you have to face the consequences of your actions. Because right now, you're just a nuisance, registering multiple accounts and using IP edits to pretend to be an outsider who has taken issue with established editors, imploring them to change their ways and threatening further disruption if they don't. If every decision you have made on Wikipedia has led you to this point, you have made some very bad decisions. There is no way to get the outcome you want here. It's difficult to appeal to somebody's character when you clearly have no character of your own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F1 season article names

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]

Statistics at WRC season

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]

Ways to improve 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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 stop adding personal POV and misleading bias to the WP:RSN section title

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.T v x1 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship for deletion

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. T v x1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming plot in Blade Runner 2049

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]

F1 2017 Toro Rosso Drivers

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.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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]

Old sins cast long shadows

Blocked 46.200.32.235 and Prisonermonkeys for 31 hours. Bretonbanquet, you tried very hard to get the two users to stop, which does you credit, but both editors misbehaved, both called each other's edits vandalism (not true), and neither showed any insight into their behavior. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive259#User:46.200.32.235_reported_by_User:Bretonbanquet_.28Result:_IP_and_Prisonermonkeys_blocked.29 Result: Blocked three months, since no agreement could be worked out with User:Prisonermonkeys that would guarantee an end to the disruption. This report shows him making a 3RR violation on December 4 at 2016 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys still doesn't seem to recognize any problem with his editing there, and he won't agree to take a break from that article. This is the same duration as his last edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive301#User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:Tvx1_.28Result:_Blocked.29 Oh I did. What do you want? A banner? A recorded delivery fed ex songagram? You made 4 edits in an hour. You were online and you could read the warnings in the edit summaries sufficiently. Yeah, you were probably making good faith edits and being Being Bold, but you should of also followed Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the first revert. The Editors you were warring with feel very passionately about the topic and have contributed to several good articles on the subject. It is of this editors opinion that you were in the wrong in this instance and forgive me for being blunt you have now prevented other editors like myself further improving the article. MisterShiney (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC) To Prisonermonkeys, for the record: I was working with other editors and an established consensus. You are the one whose edit summary read, "Feel free to re-word as necessary (it might be in passive), but I expect a full explanation for any reversion." That is the very definition of WP:OWN. And as MisterShiney notes, 4RR is supposed to be a bright-line violation not subject to admin interpretation. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive201#User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:Tenebrae_.28Result:_Protected.29 I don't deny that I have edit-warred... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive217#User:Prisonermonkeys_and_User:Djflem_reported_by_User:The359_.28Result:_.29 I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and Dr.kolles. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive242#User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:Tvx1_.28Result:_.29 Prisonermonkeys, who has previously been blocked for edit warring three times since October (11 Oct 2014 / 1 Nov 2014 / 14 Nov 2014), has continued to edit war. The article in question has two points, one constructor entry and one Grand Prix, that are labeled "subject to confirmation" and "provisional" respectively. Prisonermonkeys believed that this constituted a violation of WP:WEASEL when in fact the FIA (the organising body) has so far declared these conditionals to be the most recent confirmation, so me, Tvx1, Burgring and Twirlypen have stated that it is clearly not a case of WEASEL, which Prisonermonkeys does not understand. To this effect, Prisonermonkeys, made four reversions (above) in just over five hours (no-one else violated 3RR). Following the second pair of reversions, Prisonermonkeys then decided to go onto the talk page to re-assert his stance, which was quickly rejected. Just over three hours after breeching 4RR, Prisonermonkeys then proceeded to add the notes back onto the page (using four edits, a perfectly legitimate set of edits). Prisonermonkeys claims (fairly) that he could not revert the pair of edits together, and feels that he only made two reversions (a view that the precise wording of 3RR disagrees with). What is worse is that Prisonermonkeys is claiming that we are not applying WP:AGF and that we should assume his four edit summaries of 'That feels like WP:WEASEL', 'Inferred by TBA status', 'To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"' and 'Same as before' mean he actually wanted to change the style of the footnote, which I simply can't see. His edit to include the footnote was proceeded by a talk page message that started with 'I've modified it to be as unobtrusive as possible.' These to be does not fall in line with his story of 'I wanted to change the footnotes', nor does his phone's inability to load editing pages properly, as his four edits to include the footnotes took just three minutes to achieve. He makes absolutely no attempt to accept his actions were wrong or to admit to what is clearly the truth. —GYARO–MAGUUS— 20:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive265#User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:GyaroMaguus_.28Result:_Blocked.29 I've Blocked Prisonermonkeys for three months for edit warring. I see no evidence supporting his accusations that Dential is related to either of the users mentioned above. My only conclusion is that PM is, as he has done in the past, using sock puppetry as an excuse to justify his reverts… --Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:Dential_and_User:Prisonermonkeys_reported_by_User:Tvx1_.28Result:_Prisonermonkeys_blocked.3B_Dential_warned.29

So you're trying to hide from your misdeeds now? 73.147.18.109 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)