User talk:Prisonermonkeys/Archive4

2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions
Hi Prisonermonkeys, I write you concerning a removal on the page on the 2012 Dnipropetrovsk explosions, motivated because implying blasts were political demonstration in favour of Yulia Tymoshenko, and similar unsourced section that security forces had staged several other blasts elsewhere. I agree with you that some claims might not have been adequately sourced (e.g. concerning the Minsk Metro bombing responsible) but I cannot agree with the full deletion of the paragraphs of the background section recalling the Timoshenko case. I do not think that the text inserted implied blasts were political demonstration in favour of Tymoshenko, but if you feel so, I invite you to help by editing the text in a more NPOV way. I will reinsert the text, with edits, and I look forward for your help too. Bests,--Dans (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:DTM season page
Unless you've already fixed the problem, it is appearing alright now on Opera. Don't know about the other browsers [if the principle still applies] are appearing like that, but that's how it is appearing at my end. Craig (talk)  11:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look on Firefox then! Craig  (talk)  11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it; just a problem with the rowspan levels. As long as it covers every row of the table, you only need it in the top row of the table, rather than at the top and the bottom. Craig  (talk)  12:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

HIMYM
Regarding your diff, it may be because some bozos have been putting up plot details before the ep aired. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

F1 circuit maps
I agree that it's an issue, but I'm far from an expert when it comes to maps, or graphics of any kind. Sometimes I see people adding them, but I never recognise the editors as regular posters, like this chap. Maybe try to tap up someone like that? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Prisonermonkeys. User:Restu20 left a message on my talk page offering to make corrections to F1 circuit maps. DH85868993 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Actually I don't create and edit F1 circuit maps, but i've found some references (like this and this) and I use it to indicate to other users how to edit circuit maps (when they are wrong) or how to create them (if the track image doesn't exist). For example you can see here what I've said.
 * Your idea seems to be nice, but for first I've thought that we must have a correct circuit map for every F1 track. Once we have all maps, we can decide to standardize all the circuit map to the same style. What do you think about this? Restu 20 09:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Race abbreviations
Hi Prisonermonkeys. FYI, I have reverted the race abbreviations in 2012 Formula One season to the WP:F1 standard abbreviations, which are used in all the other season summaries, driver & team articles, etc. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review instructions
Hi. I posted a note for you at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review. It tells you the best process to follow to get a Peer Review started. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Gareth Roberts
In 2012 World Rally Championship season you said: "this doesn't need an explanation - we don't go into detail as to why drivers swap co-drivers mid-season every time they do it"

I wonder if you really are that cold guy that the death of G. Roberts means you just a co-driver swap to Craig Breen. It's not about Breen's co-driver change, it's about lost of a life.

That crash probably ended Breen's career. For example, if Loeb died, would you say it's just a driver swap to Elena and should not be mentioned?

I hope you don't remove the explanation why Roberts is not reading notes anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnishF1Fan (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

RE:Quote dumping
Alright thanks. If there is any way where you can help me improve the article, then just give me a heads up. Anyways, thanks again. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Silverstone GP2 and GP3 Series rounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Guerin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Please change dark knight rises as An 'American Superhero Film' From british American Superhero Movie Because The Worldswide Controller And Rights Holder Company Of dark knight rises IS 100% American-Warner Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.226.238 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The nationality of the film was decided by consensus. It can't be changed without a new consensus being reached. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello
learning about the origins of bane in the prison is the most important part of the film. without it the film has nothing to stand on. learning about the origins of bane and ras al ghul and the league of shadows and then finding out that it wasnt bane but it was talia that escaped is central to the movie. if its over the word limit then something else should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierreleone (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello
the story about the mercenary and the warlord is the most important part of the movie. everything else is just 'person went from A to B'. the most important part of a story is the question 'why'. whether its a news story or a movie everybody wants to know why. for you to sit there and say the origins of bane talia and ras and league of shadows is not important is outrageous. carefully sit there and think about how the movie would have been if Nolan took that whole scene out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierreleone (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim Collins
Please join discussion at Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. I don't want an Edit war. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer drivers in WRC
Hi Prisonermonkeys,

You asked me to prove that the priority 1 is not the same as scoring for manufacturer. Here's an example from Monte Carlo rally this year: List of Manufacturer entries and the whole Entry List. There you can see most of the World Rally Car drivers have priority 1. Only van Merksteijn Sr., Maurin and Neuville have priority 2. And that's because they have no previous (good) results from WRC with a WRCar. I couldn't find anywhere what is the actual argument for which priority the driver has. I think Delecour got his P1 because he is a former winner in a WRC event.

Hopefully this made you understand the priority thing. FinnishF1Fan (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
God, you may have a point. It does all look a bit familiar, as you say. I'm for abandoning the race link discussion and leaving Eff Won to themselves - it's not going anywhere right now because nobody agrees with him/her. If he/she pops up again elsewhere, we'll have a closer look at it. If so, I'll inform Pyrope as well, he has good experience of it too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's certainly the way she works - if she feels like she's being ignored in one argument, she'll start another by edit-warring. I particularly noted the "please try harder to please the readers" edit summary, which seemed a mighty familiar sentiment. It's that "I'm making so much sense and you're just being disruptive" argument... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that... it's showing all the signs. Hopefully it's been knocked on the head for tonight. Let's see what tomorrow brings. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts as you, although I do feel it's DeFacto again. I explained on Bretonbanquet's page. QueenCake (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever it is, please stop having your own little war with him/her. This is not helping matters at all, and the more you provoke, the more he will respond. I know it is annoying to have someone making mistakes, we've certainly had a lot of new people in the project the past week or two, but you need to keep a calm head and handle things in the appropriate manner. It is far easier to handle one person being out of line than it is two. The359 ( Talk ) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My response was not directed at this discussion, I just felt this was the best place to put it rather than to start another section. In my view some of your edits have been made with the assumption that it is indeed a sockpuppet, and although I agree the possibility exists, I think your edit warring is not helping the situation.  Building a sockpuppetry case when someone is questionable is fine, but edit warring is not.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you feel you're fixing things by reverting it, but I'm also sure you know that 3RR and cases on Edit Warring doesn't give a damn about who was right and who was wrong. If Eff Won wants to hang himself for forcing his edits without having consensus, then let him.  Attempting to put the page back to the way it originally was can still make you appear just as guilty in the eyes of an administrator who will see two editors reverting each other over and over and having their argument in edit summaries rather than, or even concurrently, on discussion pages.  I myself have had to suffer a 24 hour block for such overexuberance. As I said, leaving the page his way for a day wont kill anyone, so long as it avoids edit warring, escalation, and further troubles for people.  The359  ( Talk ) 08:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ground Zeroes
Please do not remove information that clearly pertains to the game. Readers should read what's currently available about the title, even if it's based off a demo. Over time we will replace such content, but this is now. We live in the present. --AnddoX (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have discovered what you are up to
No wonder you objected to me adding the useful links to the specific GPs in the calendar table in the 2012 season article! I see you have an irrational hatered of these links, evidenced by your actions on June 11, 2012 when you deleted similar links from both the 2010 and 2011 season articles long after those seasons had ended. I have restored the links in those articles and plan to add them to the 2012 article, they are invaluable in such long articles. Please refrain from deleting them all again as they will be useful to other readers, if not to yourself. Eff Won (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotus E20, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerome d'Ambrosio
I'm according with your opinion, but there are 2 sections for it. In the section drivers you can put a driver before take part in a race. For this reason the page of 2013 season have the drivers with contract for this season before the kick off. In the section standings, you only can put the drivers who have raced in the season, in this case in the 2013 season this section doesn't exists. Phósphoros (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won
Thanks for the message. It will all come out in the wash. Remember that ANI is always available should fast action be needed. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how long SPIs take. An alternative is to propose at WP:AN for a formal ban on Lucy-Marie. Makes dealing with socks much easier and they can be reverted on sight without fear of breaking 3RR. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but remember that option is available should it become necessary. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In a word, no. The requirement is notification. Should a user be blocked, then the normal practice is to allow them to reply via their talk page and said reply may be copied over to AN/ANI as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself
I have commented on your latest, and frankly unacceptable, edit at Talk:2012 Formula One season. Eff Won (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Monza GP2 and GP3 Series rounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Guerin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Adele and James Bond
No worries about the removal. Guess I should have checked a little more carefully, but this from Time Magazine appears to cinfirm it. AP also carries a story that bookies have paid out on bets even though she is yet to be confirmed officially, which is kind of a bit WP:CRYSTALLY, I guess. I won't change it again just yet, because I'd like to see one or two more quality sources confirm it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

MotoGP and CRT
Hi. I see that have brought back the 'MotoGP entries' header onto the 2012 and 2013 seasons pages. This is unnecessary because MotoGP and CRT are not two different things. CRT is a part of MotoGP therefore splitting them off into two different sections makes no sense. CRT is a sub-category within MotoGP as opposed to being distinct entities like LMP1 and LMP2 in sports car racing. It is nice that CRT is below MotoGP in the table but the 'MotoGP entries' tag should not be as used as to suggest only refering to the non-CRT entry bikes - it creates an element of ambiguity when reading the article. And the whole section is listed under MotoGP, just as there are sections on the page for Moto2 and Moto3, so if anything having the 'MotoGP entries' heading simply serves as repetition and redundant information. I hope you can understand my thoughts on this subject. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Weehauken
I originally listed the Port Imperial Circuit as Weehawken simply because that is the city most commonly attributed with the circuit, at least from what I've seen. Whether or not specific parts are in Weehauken is a bit moot, as the Circuit of the Americas is not technically in Austin, nor is Silverstone technically in Silverstone (it is in fact in the grounds of Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire). The hyphen seems to complicate things, hence why I listed it as Weehawken only. The359 ( Talk ) 21:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Karthikeyn/de la Rosa
Don't worry about it, I was just curious as to why so many IP edits were making the same revision, because I was sure the incident had happened after Karthikeyan had drove off the track but yeah, I had a look and turns out we were all wrong. I've never really been a fan of autosport, mainly because you're paying for something you can get anywhere else, mostly of course. BosleyTree (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Circuit maps
Reply here. AlexJ (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess, also everyone who did respond over at WT:MOTOR seemed to support the idea, so I'll try and get consistent maps done for the circuits featured in this years F1 calendar and introduce them to the articles. AlexJ (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Triple Eight
It's Triple Eight Race Engineering (Australia). Do you think you can remember that? Cheers --Falcadore (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Force of habit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:V8 Supercar venues 2013 ‎
Hi Prisonermonkeys. I'm confused by your edit summaries on V8 Supercar venues 2013. In what way is "the old template" (by which I presume you mean V8 Supercar circuits?) broken/almost impossible to edit? It seems fine to me. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After moving a navbox template, you need to update the "name" parameter to match the template's new name. I've done this for V8 Supercar circuits, so it should be "unbroken" now. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Event clash
You working on Bathurst or Japanese Grand Prix ATM? --Falcadore (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 007 Legends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moonraker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GP3 Series teams 2013
Template:GP3 Series teams 2013 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cybervoron (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Proper use of possessives
I've noticed you previously reverted my changes in 2012 Formula One season article. All the possessives I changed, actually conformed to the standard English grammar rules for singular possessives ending in -s. Wikipedia adopts standard form on which majority of manuals of style agree, i.e. -s's, so please make sure to review MOS:POSS before changing it again. cherkash (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a copy of our discussion on the article's talk page, please continue discussion there if you want to pursue it further. cherkash (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't just "undo" others' revisions, since in this case there were multiple fixes to the article – only with some of which you disagreed. Better, you can change back few words you specifically think are questionable, while we keep discussing them on the Talk page. The rest should stay. cherkash (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The reword rather than revert is a useful guideline according to Reverting. You obviously prefer reverting en masse, even in cases where there are multiple edits and improvements within a single article change, only with some of which you disagree. This is not helpful, and so I suggest you revert only the use of possessives in this case (if you really insist), and do it through an edit and not through an undo. cherkash (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you (not me) are currently in violation of 3RR rule. I've done only 2 undo's while you've done 3. I strongly suggest you undo your latest undo (it won't count against you according to Three-revert_rule), and edit the article instead – but only with respect to the possessives use, while keeping my other changes intact. If you really care to review my changes, you'll see there were specific fixes to the citation tags which improve the article (essentially fix previous errors). cherkash (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cherkash has been given a 3RR warning and told to discuss on the talk page. Banhammer ready. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Indian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 V8 calendar
To be fair, TollHRT actually started a seperate Auckland 400 article. I change it to a redirect. Technically I should get the Auckland 400 redirect deleted and move the V8 International article. --Falcadore (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we'll get very far. Impression I get is that he is quite young, no older than 16. He doesn't understand the importance of referencing or doesn't care. He originally got in to Wikipedia to write about a rural-centre tennis club. --Falcadore (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried quite a bit when he started but an taken a bit more hands off at the moment to see if he develops at all. --Falcadore (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

GP flags
I see you removed them from the 2012 season article – when I saw them, my first reaction was to do the same thing because I thought we agreed to get rid. But then I looked at the 2011 article and they're there as well. What did we decide to do after all? I'd like to remove them from the 2011 article too really, plus anywhere else they've crept in. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I've asked him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WRC 2013
Hi, I don't really know what's going on with this page at the moment. There are a lot of incorrect entries in the drivers table and whenever the right information gets put in, it gets removed. Here is a list of the errors:

1. Sebastian Loeb is to remain part of the Citroen works team next year despite only competing in select events. 2. There should be an extra line for Citroen as there will be a fourth works driver (if you include Al-Qassimi) nominated for manufacturers points on the events Loeb is absent. 3. The Citroen team name for next season has been confirmed as Citroen Total Abu Dhabi World Rally Team. 4. Andreas Mikkelsen has not been confirmed at VW for next season. 5. M-Sport have not confirmed any drivers for 2013 so far.

Hopefully you will allow me make these changes, which I can fully reference, and not allow speculative stories such as the Tanak one currently on the page. I'm not sure who is responsible for removing the correct stories but it is bad for Wikipedia to have faulse information displayed on it's pages. I can assure you I am correct on the above matters as I have to keep up to date with the WRC as part of my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. You have no source to support that.
 * 2. You have no source to support that.
 * 3. You have no source to support that.
 * 4. The source in the article supports the content of the article.
 * 5. The source in the article supports the content of the article.


 * I don't really care if it is part of your job to keep up to date with the WRC. Until you get reliable third-party sources to support your claims, the content in the article will stay as it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Calm down chap no need to get on the offensive! I have previously supplied reliable third-party sources however they have been removed, I'm assuming by you. I'm not looking for a fight I just want Wikipedia's pages to be accurate otherwise what is the point it having it? Here are the sources backing up my points:
 * 1. "with the UAE’s Sheikh Khalid Al-Qassimi joining Finland’s Mikko Hirvonen and Frenchman Sébastien Loeb in the driver line-up" shows Loeb will remain part of the Citroen works team for 2013. Also this is a more recent story than that currently on the page - please update.

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-206539.html http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121005138578
 * 2. "The new three-car Citroen Total Abu Dhabi World Rally Team will make its debut in the 2013..." speaks for itself - please update.

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-206539.html http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121005138578
 * 3. "The other crew who will replace Loeb and Elena for the rest of the season will be announced by Citroen in due course" again shows Loeb will be part of the Citroen works team in 2013. Also shows there will be a fourth works Citroen driver alongside Hirvonen, Al-Qassimi & Loeb - please update.

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-206539.html http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121005138578
 * 4. "Capito has suggested that a third could be entered for Andreas Mikkelsen" the words in bold prove Mikkelsen is not confirmed for next season. Also this is a more reliable third-party source reporting on an interview with the VW Motorsport boss and is a more recent story than that currently on the page - please update.  http://www.wrc.com/news/archive/capito-dont-expect-too-much-too-soon/?fid=17803
 * 5. "Of the potential candidates, current semi-works M-Sport drivers Evgeny Novikov and Ott Tanak..." the words in bold prove Tanak is not confirmed for next season. Also this is a more reliable third-party source reporting on an interview with the M-Sport boss and is a more recent story than the on currently on the page - please update.

http://www.wrc.com/news/archive/wilson-you-can-win-with-kids/?fid=17775


 * I hope you agree these sources back up my claims. I am happy to apply the changes to save you time however I will wait to hear back from you first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can't be bothered to edit properly, don't bother editing at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that Paddock Talk is a reliable source, and The Saudi Gazette seems to simply be repeating what they say. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok we'll leave those for now if you like until a better one comes up. I trust you are happy the other sources are sound though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you removed my edit again. Why do you want the page to display incorrect information? I have proved to you above that you have misinterpretted stories you have read. I expect my CORRECT information to remain this time or I will be forced to take action towards blocking your account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1990 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Currency conversion template
Hi, I can't find anything – the Skyfall article just has the Turkish currency converted manually into dollars. I can only imagine that such a template would need to be constantly updated with the exchange rates and it might be really time-consuming to do. The currency templates I can find, like Template:Currency, make no mention of such a tool, though there's talk of one at Template:Inflation. Seems like it would be damned handy though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castle (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Mosley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Theft Auto V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
I appreciate what you're saying, but the guideline is clear: Film plots are only to exceed 700 words in extreme cases such as Pulp Fiction ' s non-linear plot. We go through this often with everyone wanting to make an exception for their favorite movie, but that the fact is that if the labyrinthine plot of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol can be done in 700 words or less, pretty much any movie can. A second point: Talking about Bond's psychological /emotional state sounds like POV, since we can only state what actually appears on the screen. And in any case, I don't believe I made any changes to content, simply to language: It's simply verbose writing to say "located in the remote reaches of Scotland," compared to "in remote Scotland," which is more succinct and four words shorter. I'm sure you can agree with that example. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a valid interpretation, but an interpretation nonetheless. All we can do is say what's on the screen and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. And I do see that while we've been discussing, another editor, independent of me, has edited the plot with this same thought in mind. I think if we were to invited peer review or do an RfC, it would go to same way.


 * I have to say, I'm very perplexed why anyone would revert turning passive voice to active voice. That's writing 101. We don't say "The car is driven away by Carl." We say "arl drives the car away." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. What you said on my talk page is what we see on the screen. That's fine.


 * It's drawing a conclusion from that which we cannot do.


 * And on a separate note, I just trimmed the opening paragraph and saved 20 words by doing little more than changing the passive voice to the active voice. There's no content change &mdash; all the same information is there, just with fewer words. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on using the passive voice? That's basic bad writing.


 * Two editors are reverting your changes. If you continue to revert back, you will soon be violating WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You continue to stick the passive voice construction in, for no reason. You can say "Eve shoots Bond" just as easily as "Eve is shot by Bond," but for reasons I cannot fathom, you insist on using the wordier passive voice than the standard active voice of good writing.


 * No matter. You've gone 3 reverts. One more and you break WP:3RR and if I report you, an admin will block you from editing. I'm already organizing the diffs so it won't take me but a minute to report you. I'm sorry it's come to this. Two editors both disagree with you. If two people both disagree with you, maybe you should take a step back and think why. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We are required to give a warning when an editor approaches WP:3RR. It's not a "threat" &mdash; it's a requirement.
 * You have not responded to multiple comments about your insistence on using the passive voice, which is bad writing.
 * I will attempt to address your concern about Bond being shot twice in the opening sequence, but the fact is, he's shot twice in the opening sequence. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2012 (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.

We are discussing some change in the plot section of the movie Skyfall.
You are invited to the discussion. Under "A few changes in the plot section. Your opinions needed" section. Your input is appreciated. Please join, as many other have already voiced their opinions. Looking forward to hearing from you. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.
I am addressing some new concerns about the sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 F1 season
Hey. For the GA nom, the /GA1 subpage is supposed to be blank until a reviewer signs on to review the article. That's why I deleted it. Ideally it shouldn't take too long to get a review. Wizardman 05:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 Mercedes GP/AMG F1 Team
Hi,

Sorry, but I cannot quite figure out why you reverted this edit. You've pointed to the talk page, but there's nothing relevant to the change of Mercedes team's name. Could you please explain this for me once more? Ximaera (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dignity
At least have the dignity to admit your mistakes. 124.217.238.234 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have the dignity to identify yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I know what this is about. I also know that no mistakes were made, because on Wikipedia, the truth is what you can prove to be true - and that truth can change. Just because new information came to light that changes the contents of an article, that does not mean that what was in the article before was wrong.


 * Nor am I childish enough to let my ego interfere with my editing. I have no intention of admitting my mistakes to preserve my dignity, because my dignity doesn't come into it. And even if I did, I certainly wouldn't do it for someone who has to cower behind an IP address to try and make their point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of FIA WTCC Race of Russia
Hello Prisonermonkeys,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FIA WTCC Race of Russia for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, :.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Patilsaurabhr (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Loeb
Hey there Prisonermonkeys, I was on the 2013 WRC page and saw Loeb in the Citroen box, last time I was on his was in the non-manufacturer area, the source for him doesn't actually reference him for being there next season I don't think but I just wanted a second opinion before I edited, Thanks. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
Following the previous thread on the talk page, I've extensively re-worked the critical reception section of Skyfall along subject lines, so it now breaks down into the following paragraph structure: summary (RT, best Bond); the film; Craig; supporting cast; Mendes & Deakins; criticism. Does the section now look and feel better? - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Considerably. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

räikkönen image
Hi, why this edit ? Now Kimi Räikkönen main article is missing that same image... =| 130.234.207.176 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Monte Carlo Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special stage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 European Rally Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Škoda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall
Could I ask for your input on the drive-by GA nomination of Skyfall? The thread can be found here. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard
I notice you made some changes in the A Good Day to Die Hard. I can see why you made those changes.

I know some of those actors who appeared in the latest trailer, Sebastian Koch as seen in the elevator with Willis and Courtney, Yuliya Snigir was seen many times, Pavel Lychnikoff is indeed that cab driver and I think Cole Hauser is that guy holding something in his hand with two men guarding him. I haven't seen the other actors mentioned yet in neither of those trailers.

We'll know more soon by images, TV spots and such. Let's hope the movie's good. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:F1 cars 2012/2013
Hi Prisonermonkeys. FYI, I have restored F1 cars 2012 to its former glory and recreated F1 cars 2013 - you may recall that we maintain a separate template for each season. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We do that? Huh. Guess I forgot; it only happens once a year. Sorry about that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forsaken (Wheel of Time), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sadist and The Gathering Storm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WRC priorities
Hi Prisonermonkeys,

I see you are misunderstanding the priority thing when editing the 2013 WRC page. I suggest you to read WRC sporting regulations 2013, 11. CRITERIA FOR PRIORITY DRIVERS.

There it says:

"11.1. FIRST PRIORITY DRIVERS (P1) Drivers of World Rally cars, who are or have been:

11.1.1 Nominated by a registered Manufacturer or WRC Team for the purpose of scoring points for the FIA World Rally Championship for Manufacturers.

11.1.2 Entered by a Manufacturer or WRC Team but not for scoring points in the Manufacturers’ Championship.

11.1.3 Classified among the first ten in a World Championship Rally during one of the two previous Championship years or during the current Championship year."

Yes, Prokop is P1 in Monte-Carlo (and also in all the other rallies). That still doesn't mean he can score points for Manufacturers' championship. Prokop is getting his P1 under 11.1.3 rules. Anti-lag (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do they have to make it so bloody confusing? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike
I literally just had an edit conflict with you when trying to create Hilmer Motorsport. :) &mdash; Midgrid  (talk)  13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WRC 2013
1) As for using colors: you said it is unnecessary to use colours, but unnecessary does NOT means that it is prohibited. And with colours table looks much better. 2) Next time before undoing smth discuss it. Alex (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The unnecessary use of colours is to be avoided when and where possible. Other ways of representing should be used first.


 * As for the tables that you keep mergining into one big table, you should be aware that tables that dominate a page - so that the fill up a user's entire screen - should also be avoided. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My table looks even smaller than yours so it doesnt "fill up a reader's entire screen". Alex (talk) Alex (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you adding the information for Rally Sweden when it won't happen for another month? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Because Rally Sweden is a next round so its time to add it. Alex (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And can you explain how my table dominate a page, if it is even smaller than yours? Alex (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I mean a table that fills up the entire screen, from top to bottom. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are going to create separate tables for each rally o_0 ??? Alex (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, with a summary of each event underneath. That should break up the one big table into thirteen little summary tables, which is okay. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You think its ok when it will look like this o_0 ??? Its better to do a table as in previous years articles, because it is convenient and to do a summary to each race like in Formula 1 article after or before the table. Alex (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that table will end up dominating the screen. Like this one (I'm not going to do write-ups of each rally in WRC-2, WRC-3 and the JWRC). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the table you showed looks too big, but this one looks really good. Alex (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tables should be used because they are practical first. Having such large tables is impractical. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not practical if it will look like this. Alex (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Because it will summarise each event and give a written account of the rally to give the table some context. I'd go back and do it for the 2012 season page as well, but we didn't get any coverage of it last year, so I figured 2013 would be the best time to do it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dempsey Mazda
Just as a heads up, I removed your edit to 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans because I had actually been planning on removing the statement before but had forgotten for some time. With Mazda pushing back the diesel engine the story lost most of its relevance. The submission of an entry by Dempsey minus the Mazda engine supply is crystal balling a bit as entries have to be awarded, therefore there is no guarantee that Dempsey/Del Piero will even race, let alone that this project will even be in the LMP2 class. It's pretty much the finicky nature of Le Mans, simply submitting an entry is not something notable as a good 80+ entries are usually received by the ACO each year, but only 56 are invited. Even with Mazda backing, the entry was not guarenteed (although 99% likely). The359 ( Talk ) 05:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't need to justify those edits, particularly when it's a subject I know you're much more familiar with than I am. I know I can be demanding sometimes, but only when I think something is contentious (ie, I felt that trusting the Bild article on Glock's departure from Marussia opened up the door for Bild being used as a source more often when I know they're unreliable), or if I think the person making that edit (and there are a few on the Formula 1 pages that I could name) needs to slow things down and explain themselves.


 * In this case, I trust your judgement. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to explain further since I ran out of room in the edit summary and felt it didn't quite suffice. The359  ( Talk ) 05:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking consensus
Before you throw around accusations about not seeking consensus see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycle_racing dated 30 December 2012. Your opinion would of course be very welcome. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL
Go. Read. Specifically sections 2 and 3. You have been here long enough to know this stuff, it's fundamental to en encyclopdia.  Pyrop e  22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes AMG
Since when has the constructor name been changed to "Mercedes AMG" when its been just "Mercedes" for the past three years and the team itself has not annouced anything, The 2013 FIA entry list refers them to being still called just "Mercedes" not "Mercedes AMG" I think their needs to be a strong reliable source to back this name change up, Because anybody could just refer to the team or constructor as being "Mercedes AMG" for short instead of "Mercedes" when officialy its still "Mercedes" if people are just going to change the constructor names when they want we might as well change the "Red Bull" constructor name to "RBR" or Toro Rossos to STR and ect,As people refer to that as being the constructor name when its not. This is why the constructor name should be changed back to "Mercedes". Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what the discussion on the article talk page is for. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

F1 Articles
Sorry but I'm not stupid as you seem to think I am I know all of Wikipedia's rules and regulations but it seems you have sort of stalking grudge against my edits but if one of my edits come across wrong then tell me calmly instead of trying to come up with ways of insulting me and attacking my intelligence, that's what it comes across as. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Europol match-fixing investigation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 00:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Technical move
Please see this message I left for User:Frietjes. From a glance at the talk page, it appeared to me there was consensus to make the move. If you still disagree, consider opening up a formal WP:Requested move to change the name back. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Formula One sponsorship liveries
Hi Prisonermonkeys. The whole article is a bit of a dog's breakfast, to be honest (and despite the amount of effort I've invested in it over the years, I'm not completely convinced of its value to a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia). But I agree that the inconsistent tables look ugly and I'd certainly support a discussion on the article's talk page to investigate ways to improve its appearance. BTW, at the risk of sounding patronising, it's very pleasing to see you working collaboratively with both myself and Pyrope today, even though we disagreed with your position on the Mercedes AMG issue. It demonstrates a level of maturity that many editors never achieve. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Dorner
You consensus but I don't see a discussion about it... You to are edit waring by not starting a discussion and reverting the changes. Suppose he gets killed before a trial are you saying he won't get a wikipage. There is more than enough on him to get a good parge going. I start pages not fill them up. There is a reason why your not an admin.... There was no discussion of a consensus just you responding to my initial request for stop redirecting.

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Christopher Jordan Dorner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GiantSnowman 13:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Dorner AfD template
Any editor could and should restore the AfD template if the discussion is ongoing, regardless of whether you have !voted in the AfD or not. The removal of the AfD is vandalism, should be reverted and the editor in question warned using uw-afd1, uw-afd2 etc. GiantSnowman 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoonigan Racing Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 International V8 Supercars Championship - Collapsible endurance driver table.
Hi Prisonermonkeys,

Sorry about the edit-warring. I just thought that the collapsible table was unnecessary as the endurance drivers were already in the main table and the collapsible table was basically a copy of the main table with the endurance driver columns added.

Was a consensus made on this change before it was implemented? Previous' seasons articles have not had a collapsible table before all the endurance drivers were named.

Thanks, V8dude2 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 International V8 Supercars Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Differential (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winton 360, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bowe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Force India car numbers
Hi Prisonermonkeys. You edited the 2013 F1 season page saying that Adrian Sutil is carrying number 14 and Paul di Resta 15. Do you have any source for this? My source is this from last day of this year's testing: Picture. It has all the correct numbers for everyone, and di Resta is having 14 next to him. So I'm curious where you got that 14 for Sutil. Because I can't even find the number in the car, recent years it has been under the nose but not this year. Anti-lag (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Russian Time
Hello! Per this interview, there is no play on words or different meaning. Just direct meaning. So, yes, even in Russian, name of the team and an explanation of the name ("Russian time has come and will immediately strive forward") is a bit strange. I'm almost sure that it's reference to Russian Age Racing, as words "age" and "time" in this context in Russian have similar meanings of the uncertain period of time. Cybervoron (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, but ironic that Russian Time very unlikely will sign Russian driver in this season. Thus, Russian time hasn't actually come. Cybervoron (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Formula One season/GA1
Hello! I have begun a GA review of 2012 Formula One season, but have concerns about how many statements are sourced to blogs, and whether they meet Wikipedia's reliable sources. I am not certain they meet the verifiability policy, specifically the section on self-published sources. I would appreciate if you could comment on the GA review page. Thanks, Resolute 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I've allowed this to drift far too long. My apologies on that front.  I'm still a little concerned about the extensive usages of blog sources, but am leaning towards accepting it.  I have, therefore, completed a prose review, finding surprisingly little problems given the size of this article.  I have placed the nomination on hold pending resolution of the concerns I did raise.  Thanks! Resolute 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)`

March 2013
Your recent editing history at Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Transcendence (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR Clarification
Hi Prisonermonkeys,

According to the page on 3RR, there are exemptions for certain situations and those do not fall under the 3RR rule WP:3RRNO. As far as I can see, the back and forth going on at Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes doesn't fall under any of those. Transcendence (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In the same light, you've now passed 3RR on BioShock Infinite with the removal/change of the ending to your preferred version. --M ASEM (t) 13:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Circuit of the Americas
I've made a few improvements to the circuit of the Americas article what do you think. :) Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Rally de Portugal
I could think that you didn't read the sentence were I explained that the article was being updated, but since this was the first sentence you deleted, the only reason is that you have bad intentions. I've copied the article from 2012 edition and I'm now updating with the data of 2013 event. I don't know for you, but this takes time and I cannot do in a blink. So if you wanna help improving the article, go ahead. If not just let the others keep working.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There had not been any activity on the page for some time. That's why I deleted everything on it - because it was patently wrong.


 * Secondly, if you want to take the time to build an article, use your Sandbox. That's what it's there for. Don't go creating a page with the wrong information in it and come back to update it periodically. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Company's official website isn't a reliable source?
With reference to [your edit], please explain why you think Marussia's official website is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. I think your edit is wrong as it runs contrary to Wikipedia practices and, if applied consistently, would result in removal of a large number of references pointing to websites of other companies, agencies, organizations, etc. C1010 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Compliment
Thank you for keeping encyclopedic WP:TONE at Iron Man 3. Hardcore fans just don't seem to understand this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Just wanted to say thanks and offer my support. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hear ya, brother! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And I may be completely off in my assessment of 3 &mdash; The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, who aren't dummies, liked it. Yet you are absolutely right with your "standard kidnap the president" analysis. (Also, big plot hole: Stark doesn't see the president falling outside the plane since the president was stuffed into the Iron Patriot suit. So how did Killian, who'd come to the plane in the suit, get off the plane?). Also, the stuff with the kid was a little creepy &mdash; yeah, I get it, if Bill Gates shows up in your garage, you figure he's not a serial killer child molester. But still it wouldn't felt more comfortable, and would have been a good scene, if the kid brought "Bill Gates" to the diner to show mom and ask her first, Can I take him to the memorial spot? And the kid saves his life and all Stark with his billions does is give him a few toys? For under a hundred thousand he could've bought the family a nice modest house that's better than the cinderblock monstrosity they were living in. Argh. Ah, well . . . the next Thor looks like it could be good . . . . --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Season review
Why are you incapable of writing a season review? Why is it you believe that a dozen race report written without connection constitutes a season review? --Falcadore (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I've seen the alternative, and it's not pretty. So I find it strange that you accuse me of being incapable of writing a season review when you've produced some pretty low-quality stuff in the past. If that's the alternative, you can see why I hesitant to change the way I write pages. And nobody else seems to object to my style. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never objected to the style, but the format. When someone asks you whos winning Formula One does you say Sebastien Vettel's leading the championship, or do you say that Raikkonen won the first race, Vettel won the second, Alonso won the third then Vettel won again. Both are correct but one provides the answer the person is looking for. Your objection in the past has been to the language, not the format, so I ask, why do you believe a season can only be summarised in a series of short race reports which duplicate the efforts of having individual article? I want to know what is the part you're not understanding. --Falcadore (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Have a read of Writing_better_articles then come back to me. Most of my writing in recent times has been press releases so there is an in-built bias towards flowery language to entice other publications to reprint it verbatim, rather than write it themselves. In this modern era of publishing where the print media have sacked almost all their sub-editors and press releases have to be both print and website friendly it's changed the writing style industry wide. For example, the age old principal: "if a sentence can be broken up into smaller sentences, it should" is falling by the wayside. Print is starting to follow the website trend of huge run-on sentences. Recently I saw a sentence that was 57 words long in a major daily. 57! You can imagine how frustrating that is. Spelling errors in professional publications is now becoming the norm rather than the very rare exception. --Falcadore (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 V8s Calendar
While the removal of race winners and the like from the calendar table is a good move, I think it should still show the individual races like this: Kytabu Talk 09:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. Perhaps there should be something underneath explaining how the races are scheduled across each weekend? Similar to how the 60/60 Sprint is explained in the Format Changes but possibly in it's own section. Or even this in the Key box:
 * {|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 85%;"

! Icon ! Meaning ! Details
 * align="center" |  1 
 * One race
 * One race on Sunday.
 * align="center" |  2 
 * Two races
 * One race on Saturday, one race on Sunday.
 * align="center" |  3 
 * Three races
 * align="center" |  4 
 * Four races
 * Two races on Saturday, two races on Sunday.
 * align="center" |  E 
 * Endurance race
 * Forms part of the Endurance Cup.
 * align="center" |  S 
 * 60/60 sprint race
 * One race on Saturday, two races on Sunday.
 * }
 * Endurance race
 * Forms part of the Endurance Cup.
 * align="center" |  S 
 * 60/60 sprint race
 * One race on Saturday, two races on Sunday.
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Definitely put the report links in, though. Unless we go F1-style and have an extra table in the points standings section. Kytabu Talk 10:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The tables in the Season Review does look good. I notice on the WRC page it is "Rally summaries" - maybe we should change the V8s one to "Event summaries"? Would be more accurate I think. I know Falcadore was more concerned with the F1 page above but it relates to the V8 page and I can see where he is coming from; it is an event-by-event summary rather than a review of the season. Kytabu Talk 10:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think a season review in Falcadore's style would need to be executed perfectly for it to work. Section title has been changed. Should we go back and change the other season articles as well or wait for more feed back on this layout? Kytabu Talk 10:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix
Hello, I hope you're not busy. Do you think we can continue our discussion at Talk:2013_Bahrain_Grand_Prix soon?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dominating discussion
Remember the test drivers issue? It was getting so bogged down with edittors saying "I like test drivers don't remove them" without any content based reasons for keeping the information. If the issue was not forced, nothing would have been done. There is the occasional attitude of if I object but don't supply a reason for objecting then the issue bogs down. If there if a different way to proceed in those circumstances, I'd love to hear it. I've also found that in reaching a consensus, the person creating and forcing the issue is generally ignored once it moved forward as they are considered to be at the far end of extreme of the discussion and someone else has to provide the compromise before it is listened to. The359 has had this problem in the past. --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thai Grand Prix
Please don't add speculative edits to anything here. Clearly, you have been here long enough to know that, and I also believe you know that constitutes as vandalism. The Thailand Grand Prix circuit in Bangkok was approved by the FIA- but that doesn't mean the Thailand Grand Prix has been confirmed for the future. There hasn't been any word of confirmation of a Formula One Grand Prix in Thailand yet. So, don't add stuff you don't know whether it's true or not to anything that is editable on this website. Thank you. --Hmdwgf (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. There's nothing to say it will happen. Except for all the reliable sources that say it will. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to get something across to you and your assuming comments, which, I must add, were made with a dreadfully condescending nature and absolutely no understanding of my motives. I am not stupid. I did not assume bad faith in what you are doing. I am a neutral party. I am just here to do work and follow the rules, so I don't get in trouble. I assume these edits were made in good faith; considering your prior history here. I've seen worse and more destructive edits than the ones you made. But all the sources you have provided me are, just like your edits, pure speculation, and none of them present any official confirmation of a Formula One Grand Prix in Thailand. Speculative edits like this (unless they are prounounced as speculation) should not be presented as fact, which is exactly what you did. As of when this message has been written, there hasn't been any official confirmation of a Formula One Thailand Grand Prix yet. What you did was in no way mailicious or in bad faith (even though vandalism is normally construed in this way)- but you made the edits anyway without knowing whether or not a Formula One Thailand Grand Prix has even been confirmed or not. That is vandalism.
 * I am going to revert your reversions of my reversions of your edits- and if you revert them back, I'm reporting you to an administrator, which, considering your attitude towards me, I probably will have to. But I don't want to. Clearly, based on your history, you're a good editor, but don't think you can stupidly try to bypass your way around me. Thank you, and have a nice day. --Hmdwgf (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually- you know what, just to dampen the fire here a bit- I'm going to eat my own words and apologize for accusing you of Wikipedia ruled vandalism. But your edits were still (as you quoted) out of place. You should know better. --Hmdwgf (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
Your recent editing history at 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)