User talk:Prisonermonkeys

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


 * @ &mdash; not anymore. Thank you for taking care of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing articles
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)

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)

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)
 * 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.Tvx1 15:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)

@ &mdash; 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&mdash;because nobody wants to collaborate with someone so hostile&mdash;and you'll leave on your own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * 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&mdash;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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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.  Tide  rolls  14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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?  Tide  rolls  17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 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.  Tide  rolls  17:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 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.  Tide  rolls  17:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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".— Spin tendo Talk 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; thank you for posting this. It's nice to see that @'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)


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


 * 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)
 * I think this socking is still going as we speak. On the 2018 season article talk page I see contributions by GeoJoe1000 and GeoJoe10000.Tvx1 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * 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.Tvx1 07:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * 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.Tvx1 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@ &mdash; 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&mdash;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)

What's going on with this user this morning? They appear to have gone completely berserk.Tvx1 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ &mdash; 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&mdash;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)
 * Well, the original ("sock master") account hasn't been blocked. So I wouldn't assume this has now been dealt with just yet.Tvx1 12:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but given his behaviour, I don't expect him to last much longer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. — Spin tendo Talk 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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&mdash;the unprovoked abuse that he hurled at anyone who dared question him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@ "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.— Spin tendo Talk 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; 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)


 * 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)


 * 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&mdash;much less sincere&mdash;in what you say now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

I might not be able to put this as eloquently as @ or as concisely as @, 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&mdash;"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)

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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)

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

Statistics at WRC season
Look at 2011_World_Rally_Championship and 2010_World_Rally_Championship. 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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * You shouldn't just remove content like that. Put it into voting then. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * 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)

@ &mdash; 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2019 FIA Formula One World Championship


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,. 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, 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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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)

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)


 * @ &mdash; 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&mdash;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)


 * 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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)


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


 * @ &mdash; 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)

"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)

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 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)

WP:CANVASS
"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. Pyrop e  20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ford_Fiesta_WRC check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ford_Fiesta_WRC?client=notify 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)

Rally succession box template
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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * For 2018 Monte Carlo Rally it would be:


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Template:Infobox rally
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)
 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * Done. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Format of report of Monte Carlo Rally
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.


 * @ &mdash; 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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Monte Carlo Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shakedown ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2018_Monte_Carlo_Rally check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2018_Monte_Carlo_Rally?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

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

Rally Italia Sardegna
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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. tlhIngan 01:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Volkswagen Polo R WRC
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)

Your GA nomination of Volkswagen Polo R WRC
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)

Infinity Wars
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)


 * @ &mdash; 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&mdash;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)


 * 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)
 * @ &mdash; 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)


 * 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)


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

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

Edits to Avengers:Infinity War
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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

Best take this to your talk page
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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tvx1 10:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
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. 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)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)

List of World Rally Championship Co-Drivers' champions
Hey, did they really start co-driver's championship in 2003? Do you have a source? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; 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)

2018 British Grand Prix
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)

July 2018
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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, I have to do it to you as well.......  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * 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)
 * @ &mdash; I appreciate it; I really do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That means a lot to hear that. I appreciate it very much... thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@ &mdash; 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    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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)


 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * 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)


 * @ &mdash; done. Restoring edits now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

F1 articles markup
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)


 * 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&mdash;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)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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)

Your GA nomination of Volkswagen Polo R WRC
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)

Are you retired now?
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)
 * @ &mdash; 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, 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)
 * 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)
 * @ &mdash; 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; 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * @ &mdash; 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)
 * Quite, strange that someone else would be dealt an IP only you have used before though.Tvx1 15:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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)