Archives

April 2009 — May 2010 April 2010 — May 2011 April 2011 — May 2012 April 2012 — May 2013

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. You have new messages at Rhain1999's talk page.
Message added 10:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ive added some images to the Caterham Cars article. I would appreciate it if you have a quick look at them and see if they are needed. Their just images of the current and past car badges. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Catalunya GP2 and GP3 Series rounds may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? Resolute 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ERS is the complete Hybrid System. It consists of the ES (Energy storage), KERS (Kinetic-ERS) and the HERS (Heat-ERS). The KERS is devided in the MGU-K (Motor Generator Unit KERS) and the CU-K (Control Unit KERS). The HERS is devided in the MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit HERS) and the CU-H (Control Unit HERS). You can see it in the left part of the picture: http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/147452/f1-magneti-marelli-2014-inline.jpg JohannesDausG (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Johannes[reply]

Too many acronyms makes for a very poor explanation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent racing-related articles, I award you the Writer's Barnstar :). Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it says at http://www.grand-prix-monaco.com/formula1monaco/ that MotoGP is a supportrace, or is that wrong? John Tatebury (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Very, very wrong. MotoGP does not race on street circuits at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How strange... I guess you were right in removing that peice of information then. John Tatebury (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site just advertises tickets for it, and doesn't know the difference between mythical and (possibly) legendary. Britmax (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Given that you don't seem to have learnt that lesson from the Bahrain debacle, here's another warning. Get consensus for removing this information, or leave it alone. Your personal opinions on whether it is relevant or whether it breaks any policy really carry no weight otherwise. Most of your objections don't even make sense, given the actual text/sources. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you and User:Gruesome Foursome have been edit warring at 2013 Formula One season and at 2013 Monaco Grand Prix. There has been very little discussion at the Formula One article and no discussion at the Monaco article about your disputes. If you persist in edit warring, you risk being blocked. Bear in mind that you don't have to breach WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring. I suggest you stop battling in the article and go back or go to the talk page. Dispute resolution mechanisms are available if you the two of you cannot resolve your disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys,

I felt that the reception of The Last of Us did need some points of criticism, but I usually don't add stuff myself, so thanks for this! --Soetermans. T / C 14:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: ). Thank you. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like both of you have been edit warring per the report at WP:AN3#User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: ). You are both experienced editors and have much to offer, but you are both extremely stubborn. Please join the AN3 discussion and promise not to revert the article any more until consensus is reached. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've restarted edit-warring, I've re-listed the 3R-AN3 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359, relisted by User:Falcadore (Result: ) --Falcadore (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested in the report that admins block both you and Djflem, unless you agree to make no further reverts of the disputed material. There may still be time for you to reply before the report is closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you had to undo a few photo's on the Austrian Grand Prix article without a reason? I'm trying to help improve that article as it seems to of not bean edited as much as others. By the way, how long do you think we will have to wait until the FIA say its official? Because a lot of News sources are saying its already official. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page of the discussion on the 2014 Formula One season talk page, regarding the Indian Grand Prix before a revert war ensures involving an unobtainable blog page article being used as a reliable source. Sport and politics (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting increasingly concerned by the WP:Ownership traits which are being exerted by you on the article. You are very quick to point fingers and make accusations at users who challenge what you consider to be the "correct" form of the article and you are very very quick to make sweeping statements in edit summaries. I was fully aware I was reverting to a three column calender and removing the the drivers who had been added. Please take a step back from thinking that other users making changes to the article are a threat to you. It is coming across as you are trying to be the owner of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion going on regarding the sources used to add the additional drivers as www.worldcarfans.com could very easily be classed as a blog in the same way that F1 Fanatic is being classed as a blog, which you are disputing, and are well with in your rights to dispute. Please though take more care when making sweeping generalisations designed to ensure that you are seen as the "winner". (yes I am aware that is simply an essay which has been linked to). Sport and politics (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prismonmonkeys, purpose of co-driver field is to allow cites to be added as they become available, rather than as on the 2013 page where it has yet to be done and will be a larger task done restropectively. Co-drivers start to be named as soon as straight after Bathurst.V7867 (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, understand your logic.V7867 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 GP2 Series season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formula E (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, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

over 1 year no engine development - no engine available - Lotus cannot use not existing engine FootballCleaner (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence that the project is completely dead - only that the development had to stop because they ran out of money and were seeking more investment. Where is your proof that they never found this investment and restarted development? The source you are using is a year out of date. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a look and there's definitely something a bit odd, but I'm not sure what. Firstly, I've written to the closing admin on the PURE AfD and asked if he might reopen it so we can have a look at improving it. I linked him to the argument on the 2014 season talk page – it's pretty clear (in my opinion) FootballCleaner took it to AfD out of spite. Secondly, FC is clearly a sock of someone – his first edit was taking something to AfD!! But I don't know if it's Lucy/Eff Won. FC's English is piss-poor, and he's clearly foreign, probably Slovenian, as he edits Slovenian footballer articles. Even though some of the behaviour is rather familiar, if this is Lucy it's a pretty elaborate plan. Not ruling it out, but I wouldn't be confident yet of taking it to SPI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PURE AfD reopened. Admin said we'd need very good reasons to keep it though. Might need some work to get through. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That guy's going to get blocked of his own accord if he carries on this way anyway. He called me a liar on an admin's talk page... Not the best place for a personal attack. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all counts, and I've made a comment at the SPI. Looks pretty open-and-shut to me. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GP of Mexico, Korea and New Jersey is subject to be approved definitively by the organizers of the Formula 1 World Championship--Shinobilanterncorps (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Formula_One_season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagheuher (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid that edit because it was the worst explanation ever. I read it a dozen times and it made no sense. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingston and Nassau (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) 09:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read from the AUTOSPORT article that "All the boxes are ticked, all the lights are green, and he has signed for next year," Boullier told AUTOSPORT.

So I assumed that that was the green light. Some other sites have also updated and included Romain Grosjean's name as part of Lotus F1 team lineup for 2014. StandNThrow (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the race titles? Like changing British Grand Prix to Grand Prix of Great Britain etc. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2013 UTC)

Because that's how they appear in the calendar published by the WMSC. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference Forward but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 00:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Please ping me[reply]

:{{ping|Frze}}:

Sorry, Did You Write The Original ( CLT ) For The 2012 F1 Season ?

If So, Can You Correct The Copy / Paste Someone Did To The 2010 F1 Season ?

Going Backwards, Can You Include A ( CLT ) For All The F1 Seasons Until 1950 ?

( CLT ) Is A Really Priceless Information.

Thank You.

77.54.194.11 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC) ( A41202813GMAIL )[reply]

OK, an over-reaction like that suggests you need to take a week off wikipedia. Treat the suggestion seriously and don't say a thing about it being justified. This is not about the merits of the argument but that you do not have any patience for rookie editors. --Falcadore (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have patience with rookie editors. What I don't have patience with is rookie editors who show absolutely no inclination towards actually becoming better editors and instead commit the same indiscretions over and over again.

I'll take your suggestion of a vacation from Wikipedia seriously when you can convince me that your conduct towards rookie editors has always been welcoming and constructive. Don't strain yourself, though. I already know that you set the standard for this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it, because I've done it and it works. I don't want you to fall into the position where you find wikipedia editing - a hobby - has become work. You, me, everybody, needs to ration their involvement. You can believe you have it under control, but you'd be making it up as much as anyone else does.

I can't stop you taking my suggestion as a form of insult or being patronizaing or something that needs to be responded to with a typed slap, but the intent was sincere. You don't want to take constructive advice, fine. But it is fine to assume there might be some good faith in the suggestion.

I tried, I shrug and move on. --Falcadore (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Burgring (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you still rarely provide edit summaries. I was just trying to catch up with recent changes at 2014 Formula One season, and your long series of summaryless edits were a real pain to follow, particularly this one. Please be more considerate and provide meaningful summaries to help make it easier for us all to keep up with the changes. Burgring (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 World Rally Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (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) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, in your latest post on the Sirotkin issue you have said that the current form represents the sources as best as possible because it hasn't been proven it won't happen. However have you noted that Sirotkin is no longer on the page? Your comment seems to only add up with him still on the page. Tvx1 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Monte Carlo Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (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) 09:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you are not updating destination pages when you update the template? --Falcadore (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Castle characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casino Royale (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) 09:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you edit on mobile? Just through the browser or can you edit via the official app? Eightball (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well part of the reason I asked is because I was looking for an option to edit through the app and couldn't find it. I'm not sure it's possible. Eightball (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Formula One season Joetri10 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tvx1 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Volkswagen Polo R WRC page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys, could you please include edit summaries in all of your edits to this article? I know it's not required, but given the history, I think it would be helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not stand by my previous comments and my genuine belief that you view yourself as the owner of that and related articles. It is you and only you who is engaged in every single issue with the article and are in some cases the cause of long winded and circular discussions such as you when you were claiming only a certain strand of an issue had been discussed and don't get me started on Sirotkin or the numbers for the drivers. In the Sirotkin discussion you used the line "Fuck, I'm pissed off at the consistently low quality of edits from people who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about.". I would happily and easily include you in the list of users who haven't a clue what Wikipeida is all about. Its not about pushing your own views and agenda, which is what your edits and editing style shout as your view of Wikipeida.. I just despair that you are blind to the fact that you are not the owner of this page and other related pages. If you left the pages well alone there would be zero to very little conflict and every other editor could get on with editing the articles in peace and for the betterment of Wikipeida. I am not particularly interested in your standard fair responses which are just attack, attack, attack and I am right and who dare challenge me, so I wouldn't bother wasting your energy, i won't read or respond to it. It is just not worth my effort or time. You will in the end come unstuck or will tone yourself down I wait with interest which will be the eventual outcome. Sport and politics (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You regularly accuse me of breaking WP:OWN, and yet, you are the one who regularly demands that everything be run past you first. It is never a good sign when most editors are hesitant to edit an article without your prior approval. Your behaviour is consistent with that displayed by notorious troll DeFacto, and your could reasonably be blocked as one of his socks based on your edit-warring over the article archive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys. Can you point me to the image that you think File:Mercedes F1 W05 2014-01-28 17-00.jpg is a copyvio of? I had a look at the Mercedes images on F1Fanatic (and formula1.com), and I couldn't see any that looked exactly like that one. And the uploader has claimed the image as their own work. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for finding it. P.S. I didn't mean to include that massive image in your talk page - I meant to include a link to the file! Regards, DH85868993 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau (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) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys,

My name is Kenan. I'm the mobile product manager at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm wondering if I'd be able to ask you some questions regarding your mobile editing habits and opinions. Thanks! --KWang (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of User:Prisonermonkeys/sandbox/part2  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! About which standard are you talking about? Look at 2005 GP2 Series season, 2010 GP3 Series season, etc. There is no particular standard. Cybervoron (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)H[reply]

I am talking about a wider range of articles, not just GP2 and GP3. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you prove that this standard exist? I see that in various articles (not only GP2 and GP3) different align. And what difference make the center align, excepting your preference? Cybervoron (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2014 Formula One season. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Tvx1 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with an edit, that does not make it disruptive. You are very, very quick to reprimand other users for wrongdoing when your own behaviour is questionable. For the discussion in question, you have not demonstrated and of the points you raise - if anything, you have only proven my point. The only way I can tell you disagree with me is because you address your comments to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice removed content, despite not having a consensus to do so and despite the matter still being under discussion at the time and in fact it still is up to this point. Therefore your edits qualify as disruptive and hence the notification. Tvx1 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tendency to write episode summaries that are overly brief, in British English (not appropriate fore can shows) and often simple revisions of the show's teaser description, which are rarely an accurate summaries and often copyright violations (close paraphrasing is still a copyvio). Please review the MOS:TV sections governing episode summaries, spoilers and copyright. Episode summaries should be 100-200 words; reducing them 77-80 words, as you did with Castle is not appropriate, particularly given the specific summary was already controversial, and under discussion. Instead, use the talk page when you disagree with a summary. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity does not guarantee quality, as evidenced by the episode summary in question, which was badly written to begin with.

Secondly, I use British English because I speak British English. I can understand why this might be an issue, but don't you think an easier solution would be to simply make minor edits to a page after the fact, rather than expect someone to write in a grammar structure that they are unfamiliar with? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Castle episodes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.. You continued to revert even after I placed the message above on your talk page citing governing policy, requesting that you stop reverting and that you discuss on the episode talk page, particularly given the already-tendentious nature of this particular summary. You are now full-on edit warring. (And it's not rocket science to type center instead of centre; if you don't know that minor difference, I have to question your competence to edit on American English articles. Expecting others to clean up after you is lazy editing.) --Drmargi (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say the content was contentious to begin with and subject to ongoing discussion, but I cannot seem to find any such discussion, except for one on the talk page where you say that it is okay to reveal the endings of episodes in their summaries. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Big Boss (Metal Gear) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to EVA

List of characters in the Metal Gear series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Horan

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Horan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User_talk:Joetri10#Notice_of_edit-warring.2C_March_2014. Doing so is a breach of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. In particular, you have recently warned another user for making reverts to a page which that user hasn't edited at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joetri was edit-warring. I posted a template warning him of it. How is that any different to you posting warning templates when you are edit-warring. This is exactly what I am talking about when I call you out on your aggressive tactics. You are using warnings and notifications to try and shut down opposing arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You warned User:Joetri10 for edit-warring on Template:Formula One teams, a page the user in question hadn't edited at all. Tvx1 (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which was an honest mistake. You know perfectly well that it was intended for his actions on the season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is already using the "valign=center" coding, so no, it cannot be done. I think tables are automatically valigned to the top on mobiles. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war with user:Dr.kolles according to the reverts you have made on 2015 Formula One season. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tvx1 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur seems to be a pretty sensible person, and has dealt well with the DRN so far. What should basically happen is that, regardless of what we do or what Joetri and Tvx do, Hasteur will come to a conclusion and give a recommendation. It will only really stagnate if Hasteur loses interest. If one side disagrees with his recommendation, then that's tough luck as far as the DRN is concerned, Hasteur's conclusion stands. What the DRN does do is count against the "losers" if they continue to argue. It creates more of a consensus one way or the other which is thus harder to argue against. If the losers continue to kick up a fuss or edit war, then WP:ANRFC is probably the next step. There, the DRN will weigh heavily against the "losers". I would recommend further DRNs if we have problems again, like the Sirotkin thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to go into the Sirotkin thing too deeply (just glad it's over), there was a weak source used to add him, before it became clear that he was not a shoe-in for the seat. There was then a statement from Sauber saying that they had not announced their drivers and that was allowed to be trumped by the older source, for reasons I never quite grasped. Anyway, suffice to say that any long darwn-out affair at the talk pages should probably go to DRN sooner rather than later, for the sake of the sanity of all of us ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tvx1's system doesn't work too well with wider columns, and it becomes impossible to align properly on all devices, so unless no-one minds the word "Circuits" being slightly off-centre on mobiles, my perfectionist tendencies do not allow it to be given the go-ahead. I'll happily place the "Nat." column version into the article though, and you can let Tvx1 try to fix it. I have one or two ideas to fix it myself, which I'll try soon. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could be seen as canvassing. I'm assuming that you didn't mean it to come across that way, but others may not be so generous. Far better to flag up the discussion at WP level with a neutrally worded notice if you want other editors to chip in. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just asking for some info as to the non-inclusion of Koen Pauwels and Alexandre Theuil in the driver list when (especially the former) is listed down as a driver eligible to score manufacturer points. Please reply on the 2014 FIA World Rallycross Championship season talk page. This would be much appreciated, as nobody seems to be using the talk page on that article and you seem to be an astute editor of motorsport articles. 121.216.230.243 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to 2014 Formula One season does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Tvx1 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, I thought you had changed it just for the sake of changing it. I got the DSQ to work, here's the code I used: style="background-color:#000000; color:white"| DSQ Cheers. ^Kytabu_Talk 09:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys. I just want let you know that I restored the content I added (if you want to change it to a more elegant grammar, that doesn't matter). I will try to clarify my reasons. My objection came basically from the fact no entity called "Lotus" owns the Lotus F1 Team. The team is owned by the Luxembourgish-based venture capital group Genii Capital, Lotus Cars isn`t more than a "Branding Partner" of the team, as part of a deal signed in 2011.

Genii bought the current Lotus team from Renault in two stages, at the end of 2009 (a 75%), and at the end of 2010 (the remaining stake) (not 2010 and 2011 as I put into the rationale, my mistake). If Lotus Cars gave money to these transactions, it never was disclosed and we can't assume that as a fact.

I hope this will make my point clear. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Russian Grand Prix, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conservative Party and The Telegraph. 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) 08:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2014 Grand Prix of Belgium. Since you had some involvement with the 2014 Grand Prix of Belgium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tvx1 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prisonermonkeys. I've added all the other "2014 Grand Prix of XXX" redirects to the nomination - whichever way the discussion goes, I think it makes sense to do the same thing for all of them. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tvx1 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

although you are correct, the point of focus was on Twitter and not my fan status. WP:TWITTER From my previous understanding, Twitter would only have been viable for use if the account you sourced was either that of Kobayashi, Caterham, Lotterer and/or Kolles (Or someone with similar power in the team). *JoeTri10_ 16:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the problem (which I don't think affects the MR03 article as Chilton is back in anyway). I have, however, put a nowrap around Lotterer's name. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drivers' names were crossing the boundaries of their cells and results were being written over the cell lines. If have found and addressed the problem, though. There was an unnecessary row end (|-) after the first four cells specifying the year, entrant, engine and tyres. That created an unnecessary row, which weirdly enough didn't appear on the desktop version. On the mobile version this useless blank row does appear causing all sorts of havoc. I'll clean up the other car articles for this season as well. Tvx1 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While addressing this issue, I've noticed that all the tables have lost their colors on the mobile version. Maybe that's something that should be looked into as well. Tvx1 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering wether any progress is being made over at WP:VPT? Tvx1 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Russian Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Prix racing. 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) 09:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, the motorsports site "Racer" has some sort of publishing deal with Autosport. Most of their stories show up a few hours later, and there isn't a view limit. JohnMcButts (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at the coding and found that the cell didn't have the "colspan=2" it should have had. I've put it in; hopefully that fixes the issue. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 World Rally Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special stage. 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) 09:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon. 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) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edits on Assassin's Creed Unity, you can use the {{cite av media}} template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you the favor, if you have the time, of a quick glance at User:The359/Sandbox2#Mercedes-Benz CLR. Just another set of eyes to look over the whole thing and fix whatever lingering grammatical I've missed would be helpful. Also, any ENGVAR that I might be forgetting, since it should be given a British English treatment. I'd like to get this moved into mainspace relatively soon while I still have it fresh in mind. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, I knew someone here was an English major/teacher, I just could not remember or find who it was. The³5₉ (Talk) 01:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just a quick question though, it is my understanding when it comes to measurement conversions that the sourced number should be applied first, even if it is not matching with the standards used elsewhere in the article. I seem to recall this being debated on WP:CAR at some point, so I may be wrong. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that one, I found an element of the conversion template that allows the numbers to be flipped, so easily fixed. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That edit war is way out of proportion; you and the other guy are going to get blocked if you're not careful. You know you can only break 3RR in cases of vandalism, right? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might see it like that; personally I think it's borderline, but it's a big risk to take. An admin might see it a different way. The thing with the other guy in the photo is not really vandalism. It's a reasonable question to ask "Who is the other guy?" – or else the picture should be replaced with one that doesn't have a nobody in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I warned the IP and he carried on. So now he's at the 3RR admin board. I haven't reported you as such, but it's hard to report one guy without the other coming under scrutiny. I also mentioned that his personal attack against you on my talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the longest edit wars I've ever seen, and the IP is being ridiculous. You might want to mention your attempts at talk page discussion (which the IP seems to have ignored) at the edit-warring admin report, indeed if an admin ever bloody looks at it. I'm a bit concerned that the article might be fully protected; that would be a sod during and immediately after the race. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which other issue do you mean? Happy to have it here if you want. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other issue. I just had to figure out how to get you here without bringing him over as well.

You see the logic in my edits for Kapirulin and Bianchi, right? Maybe it would help if we got some other voices in the talk page, because right now, he's just sitting on that page and reverting edits on sight. And as for his talk page contributions, he's just copy-pasting his arguments in from elsewhere. I was so sure I had him convinced last night when I made the case for covering Kapirulin in a footnote, which is why I restored it this morning. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to agree with you on both counts; Bianchi ought to be mentioned in the lead since it's being constantly referred to in all the coverage of the event, and I am basically ambivalent about the caption, as long as the guy is mentioned somewhere. You're right, we need more input, but the lengthy edit war is the kind of thing that puts people off. Perhaps ask on the WT:F1 page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I might be mistaken there, you think Bianchi isn't leadworthy? I think he probably is; a short note at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should just mention the number of competitors without going into details of the circumstances behind it, and leave that for the body. Because right now, the article just repeats itself. It kind of smacks of RECENTISM, over-emphasising the impact of his absence on the race itself (not the paddock).

We could ask on WTF1, but that takes time, and I'm kind of hoping we can stabilise the page before the race so that the article can be edited with actual content when it becomes available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the kind of thing that should be decided by consensus, not just two or three of us. At the moment, with this IP around, I think the chances of stabilising the article are slim. It might be worth asking at WT:F1 for people to go over to Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix and have their say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you got blocked, but it was probably inevitable given the extent of the reverting going on. After the race, and when the blocks expire, we can all discuss and hopefully resolve these issues. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to just add my 2 cents on this subject, and while I don't know or haven't seen what else has been going on, I have to side with the IP in that the Bianchi story is leadworthy. It is not an instance where a driver was simply replaced due to poor performance and/or some sort of fiscal issue like when KK was replaced at the Belgian GP earlier this year. This incident is something that will be remembered and referenced by the F1 community for years to come - it is very significant and there will be changes to the sport because of it. I reference Senna's & Ratz's deaths being mentioned on the 94 Monaco GP lead even though it happened at the previous event as a prime example. Maybe in time, this lead can be simplified as the Monaco one is now. Twirlypen (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, while it just my simple opinion, any unique charactaristic of a race should be leadworthy - such as why a 22 car race is only featuring 21, why a 53 lap race only lasted 44 like last week in Japan, and any unusual, record-setting, and/or rare occurances that happened afterwards such as JPM setting the all-time top speed in Italy in 2005. All of these are leadworthy in their respective articles. Twirlypen (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twirlypen, can I please suggest that you keep in mind the structure of an article?

The lead of an article is really a summary of its contents. It addresses the key issues, which are expanded upon in the body of the article. It is not the body of the article. Now, let's be objective here: yes, Bianchi's accident was tragic. Yes, it will be remembered for years to come. And yes, there is talk that it will bring about changes to the regulations. But the accident happened in Japan, so what does any of that have to do with the race in Russia? The only discernible impact is that Marussia are running one car. So please tell me, why is it so important that we have a full paragraph in the lead describing the circumstances behind Bianchi's accident (which happened in another race) and the reasoning behind the team's decision to run one car (which has no influence on the ability of the Russian Grand Prix to be run)?

Don't get me wrong - I feel that it should be mentioned in the lead in some capacity. But I also feel that the current version of the article over-emphasises this in the lead. At most, there should be a single sentence in the lead—most likely attached to the summary of the race itself—with a full explanation in the body, which already exists (and another issue, the current lead unnecessarily reproduces this sub-section, making it redundant). After all, the lead is an article summary. The first paragraph should be the specifics of the event (it is). The second should be the position of the race in the context of the season as a whole, and an historical context (again, it is). The third paragraph should be a brief summary of the pole-sitter and podium, and significant events in the race (the current fourth making a start on this); this is where a note on Marussia running one car should go. And the fourth paragraph will be a summary of the championship outcomes after the race.

Please remember that the article is about the 2014 Russian Grand Prix. It is not about Jules Bianchi's accident. That should be covered in Bianchi's article and the Japanese Grand Prix article. While the consequences should be covered, they must be given due weight - and right now, I feel that it over-emphasises these consequences. Now, I was attempting to rewrite the article lead last night, but every time I went to save it, someone kept restoring the paragraph, and hence the edit war. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, allow me to demonstrate what I think it should look like. This is the current version:

The 2014 Russian Grand Prix (formally known as the 2014 Formula 1 Russian Grand Prix; Russian: Гран-при России 2014 года) is aFormula One motor race that is due to take place on 12 October 2014. The race, which will be contested over fifty-three laps, will be held at the Sochi Autodrom, a brand new circuit built on the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi in Krasnodar Krai, Russia.

The race will be the sixteenth round of the2014 season, following on from the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka one week previously, and preceding the United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas. The race marks the first time that the Russian Grand Prix has been held in a century, and will also be the first time the Russian Grand Prix has been run as a round of the Formula One World Championship since the championship was formed in 1950.

Following Jules Bianchi's accident during2014 Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka Circuit, the Marussia team officially entered two cars, per FIA regulations, with Alexander Rossilisted as Biachi's replacement. Marussia, out of respect for Bianchi and with FIA approval, ultimately decided to only run Max Chilton's car at the event. Thus, only twenty-one cars will be on the grid in Sochi.

Lewis Hamilton will start the race from pole position, alongside Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg.

And this is what I feel it should look like (with some hypotheticals included to illustrate the post-race situation):

The 2014 Russian Grand Prix (formally known as the 2014 Formula 1 Russian Grand Prix;[1]Russian: Гран-при России 2014 года) is aFormula One motor race that is due to take place on 12 October 2014. The race, which will be contested over fifty-three laps, will be held at the Sochi Autodrom, a brand new circuit built on the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi in Krasnodar Krai, Russia.

The race will be the sixteenth round of the2014 season, following on from the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka one week previously, and preceding the United States Grand Prix at the Circuit of the Americas.[3] The race marks the first time that the Russian Grand Prix has been held in a century, and will also be the first time the Russian Grand Prix has been run as a round of the Formula One World Championship since the championship was formed in 1950.

Lewis Hamilton started the race from pole position, alongside Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg. After leading much of the race, the two were forced into an extreme fuel conservation regime to make it to the end of the Grand Prix, allowing Williams' Valtteri Bottas to catch both of them in the final laps and take his maiden win. Rosberg finished second, taking advantage of Bottas' pass of Hamilton to take second place, with Hamilton completing the order. Having chosen to enter a single car following Jules Bianchi's accident in Japan, Marussia secured a single world championship point by way of Max Chilton.

Having out-scored title rivals Red Bull Racing, Mercedes secured the 2014 World Constructors' Chsmpionship with three races remaining in the season. By finishing ahead of Hamilton, Rosberg closed to within seven points of his team-mate's World Driver's Championship lead.

That is only a rough version, but you see the intention - the focus is squarely on the event itself, with key issues summarised to be expanded upon in the body of the article.

PS - Please forgive formatting errors - it is difficult to properly copy-paste large slabs of text on a mobile. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS - To answer your other questions in the article, the preparations and controversy absolutely should be included in the 2014 race article as both directly affected the ability of the race to be run, and will not affect future Russian Grands Prix. Look at 2012 Bahraon Grand Prix and 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix as examples of this in action elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be long-winded in the lead's current format, I do agree to that. As far as my 'hidden questions', I was merely spitballing. I'm working on better adjusting the content. Twirlypen (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I don't oppose any and all changes - I just think people are getting carried away with Bianchi because he's in the news when the actual impact his absence has on the race is minimal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Twirlypen: - I just saw your latest edits in the article. The report section is fine, but I think there is still too much detail in the lead. I know I'm being frugal, but I think a single sentence noting Marussia entered a single car (and their performance) is all it needs. It doesn't need to mention 21 cars, since that doesn't have any effect on points or qualifying positions or the like. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the field is only 21 cars, I have to respectfully disagree as it did directly affect qualifying positions as there are (were) penalties that needed to be served. Plus, however minor it may be to the actual race, it is still an anomoly to the standard in that it is a 22 car championship race with 21 cars competing. I did however put forth another hypothetical question that could make the entire 21-car being mentioned argument a moot point. Twirlypen (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Twirlypen: that particular conundrum is being discussed here, as such a change would also have implications for the 2014 season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2014 Russian Grand Prix. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Large parts of the edit war last night came about because an IP editor was constantly reverting content that he disagreed with. However, he did so in such a way that he was preventing content - namely the qualifying table - from being added; every time I tried to update it, I got an edit conflict. In order to build on the page, I had to remove his edits first to prevent the conflict. This may be a result of the limitations of my device. After discussing the issue on the 3RR board (probably the wrong place to do it, but by this point, I was taking any opportunity I could to establish a dialogue), I was led to believe that I had convinced him of the need for the changes I was in favour of. I went to bed, and six hours later I found that he had still not objected further, and so made the changes. I was also harbouring some concern that he would continue to revert on sight during tonight's race, which would again disrupt the page, and wanted to gauge his response.

Decline reason:

Nevertheless, you did make 4 reverts in 24 hours which weren't reverting vandalism, or copyright violations, or libelous material. In this context, I consider the block to be correct. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 British Touring Car Championship season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MG. 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) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Prisonermonkeys, I just saw your comment here: diff. The discussion has progressed from the "poll" in which you voted, to an RfC at the bottom of the same page. I thought you might to take part in the RfC as well. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that STR ran conservatively due to fuel consumption and a predicted temperature drop of 12°C in the later stages of the race (which I'm assuming means roughly half an hour). I do not know if it was a mix-up in measurement standards, but that would equate to a nearly 22°F drop (while I admit is not unheard of, but still unusual). Is this accurate?? Regardless, the conversion is assuming a standard temperature of 12°C/54°F and not an actual drop of 12°C. A 54°F drop in half an hour would be a freak of nature! Twirlypen (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Twirlypen: yes, it's accurate. It has to do with katabatic winds coming down off the Causacus Mountains in the early evening. And yes, it's unprecedented in Formula One. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be on the safe side, I'm going to make my changes in User:GyaroMaguus/sandplate (with the template in action at User:GyaroMaguus/sandbox).

Having looked at the coding, that table appears when one of the parameters for races, wins, poles or fastest laps is entered in. Now, I don't know whether changing it so that it is reliant on "races" (so I can make the other table reliant on "entries") is a good idea. I am also not so sure about including championships in the optional table, since it would require the use of one of the three championships available in the coding, and the one chosen may not be the one most appropriate.

One idea I do have is to swap the fastest lap column with the podium column. The editor would use one of the two (if applicable) and it would show up whichever. Saying that, I'm not 100% sure how to code this idea. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did get the first and last wins to work, but I couldn't get my other idea to do so, so you'll have to talk to someone who has used to template more often (maybe DH85868993). I don't know the ins and outs of the usage of the template and I'm sure someone else does. I'm not going to update the template with my improvement just yet. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi guys. Can I suggest you put a description of your proposed changes on the (actual) template's talk page, just in case other editors can foresee any potential problems or perhaps a better/simpler way to achieve it? If you're having problems with a particular piece of coding, I suggest asking User:Frietjes for help - she's a whizz with templates. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is no need to create a separate deletion discussion for each article if they all share the same reasons for deletion. It just makes the process easier for everyone if the articles are together. QueenCake (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my tone on my latest edit. I did not mean to come over so cross. I apologize. Twirlypen (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your August 2014 source was issued well before RBR annouced they would be cherry picking Kvyat, a move that very clearly blind-sided STR. It's painfully obvious now that this source is outdated, borderline obsolete, and that STR is no longer under the position that Vergne is completely ruled out for a 2015 seat with them. I have provided a credible source that indicates Vergne has NOT been ruled out. Twirlypen (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2015 Formula One season. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tvx1 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WikiProject Motorsport you may or may not have an opinion on. V7867 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Tvx1 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2014 Russian Grand Prix. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You were warned by Dreadstar that if you continued edit-warring in this article after the protection ended, you would be blocked (see here). You ignored the warning. I blocked you for 24 hours more than the other user because you have recently been blocked for edit-warring in the same article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not aware that such a warning had been issued. After raising the matter at 3RR, Dreadstar decided to lock the article in question. I asked for clarity on the subject if vandalism, which was resolved at 10:01 on 24 October. At that point, I played no further part in the discussion as I felt the issue had been resolved. Dreadstar issued his warning over 24 hours later, at 14:38 on October 25. I received no notification of the message, and indeed, it was directed at Haken arizona. If I had received notification and/or if someone had independently brought it to my attention, I would have observed it. As a result, I noticed that Haken arizona had edited the article in question. I checked the sources he provided, and found one of them contradicted previous sources and the other was unverifiable (which I have outlined at DRN). I was not reverting his edits on the grounds that they were his edits, but rather that because the sources were in violation of key Wikipedia policies relating to sources, which is something that I would have done to any content that I knew to be wrong or misleading regardless of who put it in the article. I am aware that edit-warring is taken seriously, but I can genuinely say that my actions were intended to be in the interests of the page. Had I been aware of Dreadstar's conditions during the original 3RR dispute, I would have acted differently. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Dreadstar's conditions were explicit in his original close of the 3RR report: "If this continues after protection expires, I will block you both." The administrator's original page protection was a gift; it should have been obvious, even without the clear warning, that immediately resuming your edit warring would lead to the alternate scenario he was trying to avoid. Kuru (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Twirlypen: Do you mind taking a look at the latest edits to 2015 Formula One season by @Speedy Question Mark:? In particular, the ones about Marussia re-entering as Manor. I have noticed that the title of the article is plainly made up—the article is about Marussua racing in Abu Dhabi, not about re-entering as Manor—and its content speculative. Could you please change the title of the article in the reference template to be the actual title of the article? I abhor content that is knowingly or deliberately misleading; SQM has been an editor long enough to know that this is neither acceptable nor good enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it has already been reverted. I agree that the article is mostly speculative, without any real quotes or sources from the team itself. It just looks like a Skysports reporter wanted to have the scoop before others could report on it, but it's clear there's no real concrete information. Twirlypen (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1:, @Twirlypen: it's happened again—someone has changed Marussia to Manor, only this time it's unsourced and publicly visible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic. I've removed it again. Tvx1 (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not panicking. I'm just drawing your attention to an issue that I cannot fix myself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My mistake. Tvx1 (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan:, @Biblioworm:, @Moriori:, @FelixRosch: please forgive the unconventional nature of this, but my block is still in effect, and I would like to offer an opinion on the current DRN surrounding the 2014 Russian Grand Prix article in light of recent edits that have included the attendance figures in the article lead.

First, allow me to make my position absolutely clear: I do not oppose the inclusion of attendance figures on principle. My belief is that while they are nice to have if they are available, they are not fundamental to the articles, and certainly not so important that we might lower the standard of quality in order to include them. I am, however, opposed to the inclusion of any content that can be demonstrated to have been included on the back of improper sources. This is evidenced in the above section where I pointed out recent changes (since reverted) to the 2015 Formula One season article that misrepresented the content of a source with a title that was plainly made up by an editor. This has since been discussed on that article's talk page.

Now, for the attendance data: as much as I am willing to support its inclusion in the article (provided that it is accurate and reliable sources), the lead is an inappropriate place for it. The lead is the introduction to the article, and covers the key issues related to it. If you read the article, you will see the following are covered:

1) The key facts if the race—the who, what, where and when.

2) The context of the race, both within the 2014 Formula One season and the history of Grand Prix racing.

3) The events of qualifying and the race itself, including details of the pole-sitter and podium places

4) The impact the race result had on the 2014 championship.

5) The Formula 1 community's reaction to a serious accident involving a driver at the previous race one week before.

Each of these issues are elaborated upon in some way, shape or form further into the article. But you will notice that the attendance figures are not included anywhere else in the article. Furthermore, there are other issues related to the race—specifically the ethics of the sport's management having a close relationship with the Russian government in the aftermath of the Ukrainian insurgency and the shooting down of MH17—that a) are of arguably more importance to the article than the attendance figures, and b) could justifiably be included in the article lead before the attendance figures.

This brings me to my next point: that sometimes, we as editors must decide which issues are the most important or the most relevant to the article when writing the lead. In constructing race report articles, this is often accompanied by the question of how the issue affected either the outcome of the race, or how it affected the ability of the race to be run. For all the controversy surrounding the relationship between the sport's managers and the Kremlin, it did not prevent the race from being run or affect the outcome, and so was not included in the lead. Now, the race might have been held before a crowd of 65,000, but they had no impact on the race itself. The race would have been run before a crowd of 65 if only 65 people turned up. The crowd had no impact on the actual race in any way, and therefore it should not be included in the race.

Looking back over sixty-four years' worth of race reports, there is no precedent for mentioning that the race was run before a full crowd in the article lead. In addition to this, 65,000 is a very low number in comparison to some other European races such as the British Grand Prix, which regularly attracts crowds twice the size of the crowd in Sochi. At no point during the weekend was the crowd size a source of debate, discussion or controversy. Its inclusion has been justified as a measure of the race's success, but this is a purely subjective opinion, and does not take into consideration the opinions of competitors, teams or pundits such as 1980 World Champion Alan Jones, who characterised the race as boring. Furthermore, there is documented evidence that governments who support races—as is the case of the Russian government—also give away tickets to give the image of a capacity crowd, a tactic routinely employed for the Chinese Grand Prix. Therefore, we cannot say for certainty that the race was a success.

I must also offer the opinion that including attendance figures in the article lead is an example of lazy editing. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of an article, and over-emphasises the importance of a piece of data that is not essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. It further suggests to me that it has only been included in the lead because of its role in this dispute, which is again inappropriate. I would advocate its complete removal, as I dislike frivolous content in articles, though I doubt this would be received well. Instead, I would suggest that the most proper and appropriate place for it to be included is in the infobox, provided that it is reliably sourced, and that there is no need to mention it in the text of the article. As a final note, should this be included, then the markup for the infobox would need to be changed, as it currently appears corrupted on mobile devices (I know what the issue is, I just don't know how to change complex markup cleanly).

I hope you will find that these arguments are compelling, and I will trust that you will agree that the issue here is not some unreasonable crusade against content that I don't like, but rather a desire to promote reliability, verifiability and accuracy in sources. Every other detail in that article is reliably, verifiably and accurately recorded, and I see no reason why those standards should ever be dropped, much less for a singular detail that, in the grand scheme of things, is only a tertiary consideration (at best) for the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I spotted the issue you were reporting regarding the corrupted appearance. It should be fixed now. That is, if it was the width of the attendance value being half as wide as it should be. If it's another issue please tell and I'll see if I can fix it. Tvx1 (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Assassin's Creed Rogue 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

I have not reverted your edit, but I thought to inform you that you have reverted that page at least three times in the last 24 hours. If someone else comes by and reverts your edit and then you repeat, you will be in violation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You violated the 3RR at 06:18 on 12 November 2014‎. I have thus reported you for edit-warring. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for first violating 3RR at Assassin's Creed Rogue and then ignoring my warning at WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The original dispute centred on the inclusion of content that I felt was presented with no context relative to the article that it appeared in. I did not argue for the complete removal of that section, but rather its integration into an exposition of the game's story; without that exposition, I felt the section made no sense. Although I deleted that section with my latest edits, a comparison of my edit and the previous version of the page shows that I integrated it into plot exposition. In particular, there are four key points that both edits have in common:

1) Achilles Davenport as the player character's mentor.

2) The presence of Adéwalé and his activities in Haiti.

3) The responsibility of the player character in the murder of Charles Dorian, the father of the protagonist in a related title, as the inciting incident of that title.

4) The mysterious box that the player character and Benjamin Franklin have possession of.

I feel that the administrator who blocked me has simply seen that I made edits that removed a section and jumped to the conclusion that I reverted it without considering the actual changes that were made. A comparison reveals that I did not revert, but merely changed the form that the content took, and the section was deleted as it was now redundant. The warning that was issued specifically referred to reverting edits, not modifying existing content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

bbb23's assessment below is correct; what you have been doing is indeed edit warring, and will be recognized as such by anyone responding to your unblock requests. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Look up the meaning of revert at WP:3RR. You not only modified the article (which is a revert) but you did so by removing the section you didn't like that triggered the original war and rewording the whole thing, what I'm sure you would label an improvement. In any event, you would have been blocked earlier for violating WP:3RR without the warning if it hadn't been for my counting mistake. Based on your earlier attitude toward edit-warring, I could have predicted an unblock request like this one. You stubborn attitude in terms of what you can and can't do when you think you're "right" is just going to keep getting you in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • So I get blocked because I removed a sub-heading, is that it? I have shown evidence of how the content was adapted to fit into the new edits. Nothing was removed except for some extraneous detail, which would have been removed under WP:PLOT, which states that these sections should be kept between 400 and 700 words.

• • Judging by your response, you came into this expecting my appeal. This naturally makes me wonder whether you judged the response based on the merits of it, or if you made up your mind beforehand. I think it's quite clear that you blocked me without considering what had been changed in the article. I would like a different admin to review my case, please. Perhaps EdJohnson would be willing to take a look. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Jpgordon, so even though I kept all of the content with my most-recent edit - the one I got blocked for - I still get blocked because I edited it at all? And this is despite the way another editor involved in the dispute demanded that any change I make should be exactly what I have since done to the article, an editor who has not touched it despite telegraphing his intention to edit-war if it was changed? Sorry, but what that comes down to to Bbb23 failing to assume good faith in my edit. If anyone else had seen it before him and bothered to check what was changed, I wouldn't have gotten blocked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had a look at the edits on the page, PM. You removed the same section four times in a day. When 3RR says it's a bright line rule, it means there are no excuses, you do not do it at all. It does not matter if you are right, you just do not do it. If you get to 2R you should be looking at alternative behaviors like Third Opinions/RFCs etc.
  • The point of 3RR being a bright line rule is to stop people saturating edit histories with reverts for any reason at all. Wikipedia has alternative methods of dispute resolution and if you refuse to use them in favour of repeating the same edit procedure over again then you should not be editting Wikipedia at all.
  • You work within the Wikipedia system, not in spite of it. --Falcadore (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prisonermonkeys. You have argued (above) that "a comparison of my edit and the previous version of the page shows that I integrated it into plot exposition." That change still has to be considered a revert, because after your edit there is no more 'Ties with Unity' section. That is the section that (not always under the same title) you kept removing from the page during the three reverts cited in the report. The people reverting against you wanted this game to be called an 'interstitial game'. After your edit the word 'interstitial' has disappeared from the article. That has to be deemed a revert. The only edit that can't be judged a revert is one that adds brand-new material to an article and doesn't delete or rearrange anything. EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, that seems like a purely semantic difference to my mind—especially when the other editor involved in the dispute received nothing more than a warning despite only a cursory attempt to resolve the situation on the talk page, freely admitting an intention to continue edit-warring once the twenty-four hour window had expired so as to avoid 3RR, and admitting to reverting an edit from an IP address only once it was taken to ANI/3RR. How am I supposed to respect an admin decision when I acted in good faith—judging by your response, I would have been in the clear had I used the word "interstital" (which, by the way, is already made clear in the Characters sub-section of the article, a sub-section that has existed for weeks, if not months)—and get blocked for it when another editor has used such underhanded tactics to influence the article? What I did might have been against policy, but at least I was up-front about it. Either both of us should be blocked or neither of us should be. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your AN3 block was a simple error by the admin probably it could be undone without much discussion. In my opinion the block was not an error, since it is expected that edit wars that continue after the AN3 report are still subject to admin action. So now we are in the phase where complaining about the other party isn't a good idea. As it says at WP:GAB, "An unblock request that just asks administrators to block another editor will be declined." EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe that it was made in error because the article had already demonstrated the interstital quality for months beforehand, making what I did remove redundant to begin with, and that what I changed, I integrated into the text of the article in a way that was consistent with what both editors had lobbied for. It was no longer edit-warring, but because both Thegreyanomaly and Bbb23 never assumed good faith in the edit, it gets presented as being disruptive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly - I noticed you recently said that you had better things to do than to deal with me. And do you know what? You're right. I suggest you start by taking a good, hard, and above all else, objective look at yourself and the way you go about editing.

Let's recap, shall we?

First of all, you accused me of attempting to censor the article for spoilers on the talk page. This is the failure to assume good faith on your part. Most editors would question why someone would make those changed, rather than make a cynical accusation the way you did.

Secondly, in the original 3RR discussion, you expressed a clear desire to edit-war once the 24 hour window was up as you would technically be free of 3RR. But edit-warring is edit-warring; there is nothing technical about it. And your expression of your intentions shows that you had no interest in resolving the conflict unless it was absolutely on your terms, which is not constructive.

Finally, and most appallingly, you knew that the final edit I made was a good edit. You knew that that was the direction that the article was heading in. You called for that as an appropriate response on the article talk. You called for it several times. And yet, when it did happen, you still reported it to the admins despite all of this. Most editors I know would recognise the value of such an edit, and would let it slide.

Now, I know what your response will be. That I got blocked and you didn't; therefore, I'm wrong and you're right and you don't have to pay any attention to this. But in the face of your behaviour, are you really so surprised that I questioned the way you made an IP edit, circumventing 3RR? Sure, you admitted to it, but you didn't admit upfront—if I have to edit from an IP, I make it clear that it is me in the edit summary—and taken on its own, there is nothing sinister about it. But when combined with the above, your behaviour speaks to a much more worrying pattern. You weren't acting in the interests of the page. You said it yourself; you would only accept a full integration of that section into plot exposition. You were looking to prove a point. You were looking to teach me a lesson, which is not your responsibility. You have been arrogant, cynical and aggressive. But like I said, you'll disregard that because I am the one who got blocked.

But I will leave you with this thought: just as you have had time to comb my edit history, so too have I had time to go through yours. And do you know what? I'm not the only one who thinks this about you. And for the record, I didn't have to sift through thousands of edits to find them. I did it in five minutes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Per the rant above, I have reported you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NE Ent, I hope you do not mind my doing this given that it is under discussion at ANI, but I am hoping you can offer some advice on how to handle it. I feel the need to defend myself against Thegreyanomaly, as I feel that at every stage of this process, he has been targeting me and that he is using ANI to do it. At the same time, I do not wish to make things worse for myself. I am angry at the way he has handled this, and I am trying to remain objective. At the sane time, I hope that pinging you might offer some insight and help bring about a resolution.

This started when I made changes to the Assassin's Creed Rogue article, removing elements that I felt were confusing for readers as they offered no context to certain events of the plot in relation to the wider story, and over-emphasised the relationship to other titles. An edit war ensued, but that is not the point of this discussion. The conflict started on the talk page when Thegreyanomaly accused me of attempting to censor the article without any justification; this, I felt was a failure to assume good faith. Even after I explained my position, he still insisted that I had been acting otherwise.

The most salient point here is that Thegreyanomaly insisted that the content remain in the article, and that the only acceptable change was for it to be adapted into a full plot exposition, which is s common practice for articles relating to a story of some kind. My final edit to the article did just this, and while I removed what I felt were some superfluous details, the four key points from the subsection were carried over. Thegreyanomaly subsequently reported this edit to the 3RR noticeboard, and I was blocked. This is what caused me to become upset. He had specifically called for this edit to be made to the page, and he knew that it was the direction in which the page was heading (had our positions been reversed, I would have recognised this and let it go). Nevertheless, he saw fit to report me, and had commented in the 3RR report that he was waiting for the 24-hour window to close before editing again. I found this to be extremely hypocritical, as it came across as an intention to keep edit-warring; there was never any serious attempt to resolve the issue. After two days had passed and I had calmed down, I simply pointed out that his behaviour was unseemly, and that I was not alone in thinking so, and once again, instead of trying to resolve it, he went to ANI.

Was I upset? Yes. Did I over-react? I would like to say no, but the answer is more likely to be "probably". But look at it from my position - Thegreyanomaly accused me of wrongdoing from the start, lobbied for me to be blocked, and did so on the back of an edit he specifically called for. I feel that I have grounds to be upset, as at every step of this process, I feel that he has been targeting me for daring to disagree with him. Once my block expires, I would like to refer this to ANI, but that may be taking things too far. For the moment, I think Thegreyanomaly needs to have his behaviour reviewed and reminded that he needs to conduct himself appropriately, because ANI is not a place fir settling scores. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. Eightball (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what vandalism is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think openly and intentionally lying on an article counts as vandalism. Do you disagree? Eightball (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Except that we aren't doing that. Now, you can continue to throw those accusations around, or you can accept the consensus that is developing on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept any consensus to lie and vandalize the article. The German flag will remain. There is not a second option because all other options are lies. You will not get your way. I will not submit to vandals. Eightball (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to accept a consensus that you don't agree with. You just have to observe it. And if you wish to change it, you will need a new consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't form consensus to lie. Lies are not allowed, regardless of who you can get to agree with you. Eightball (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lie. I agree with Bretonbanquet—the race will almost certainly take place in Germany. But I don't have a source to support that, and without a source, we can't claim that the venue will be in Germany because we don't know that it will. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask, why do you think it needs a source, bearing in mind only two circuits are contracted to hold the race? If it is held elsewhere, then contractually, it can't be called the German GP because Hockenheim and Nurburgring could then take the FIA to court for breach of contract. The FIA would simply call it something else. They've confirmed it as the German GP, so it has to be one of those circuits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bretonbanquet, the contract has the race alternating between venues - but the FIA still lists the race as "TBA". Evidently, something has changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's evidence that they don't know which of those two tracks will host it. Both are still in Germany, thus, GERMAN FLAG. But I've said this ten times before and you've ignored it each time so I don't know why I think you'd figure it out now... Eightball (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source where the FIA say it will be at Hockenheim or the Nurburgring? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's required. Even if the alternation between circuits has changed, nothing has been suggested that neither circuit will host the race, or that it might be held outside Germany, something which has never happened. Why has that suggestion emerged here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because like I said, something has changed. I'd rather wait and see than make an assumption about it being a case of Hockenheim or the Nurburgring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that's much of a leap to make. Germany doesn't have any other circuits of F1 spec, and the idea that it will be held outside Germany, I mean, we're not seriously entertaining that, are we? Come on. We need a sense of realism here. It's like asking for a source that Liverpool will play their next home game at Anfield. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, answer me this, then? How do you know that the race will take place at all? If there is no venue, there is no guarantee that it will happen at all. Is that speculation? Yes. But if there is no venue as yet, there is no race. It simply has a provisional spot on the calendar. So how can we say the race will take place in Germany when we cannot say with any certainty that the race will take place at all? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but the way the DRN was formulated by Eightball looks like it might be an example of forum shopping. Basically their stance amounts to :"I came here because I want you to tell them I'm right!". Any thoughts? Tvx1 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1, I suspect that he went to DRN because he knew he wasn't going to get a consensus, so tried to portray the issue as one of disruptive editing. He seems convinced that if he can justify our actions as vandalism, then he can override any consensus and get his way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't matter that much anyway. Let's just get through the DRN. Tvx1 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will end soon. But look on the bright side—the lock has at least stabilised the article. We haven't had any of the immediate post-season silliness that we have had in the past. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of intent to take action against Eightball gets even worse. After the 3RR report, I referred it to ANI to have them take a look at everything except the edit-warring (thus the personal attacks, Harassing, refusal to discuss, ...) and it got reject entirely on the basis that the full protection has certainly resolved the users behavior. Tvx1 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spectre (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Wade. 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) 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about him being the villain? I presume he will be, but don't remember it being clearly stated in the press conference? - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Spectre (2015 film) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kikichugirl - I'm on a mobile, so I can only edit one section at a time. I put through one set of edits, then move onto the next, and then find an edit conflict because someone is reverting my edits before I have a chance to make all of the changes that I intend to make. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post the message here; I posted it on your talk page as it was a message addressed to you. Oh, well. I'd just be careful to not be construed as to be edit warring. — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Oops. Thought this was article talk page. It is your own talk page. Carry on... — kikichugirl ^inquire 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Spectre (2015 film) shows that you are repeatedly engaged in several edit wars. To resolve these content disputes, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly 78.146.44.151 (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring complaints are based on the content being reverted. I had a legitimate reason for reverting those edits - namely, for consistency with WP:LEAD. If you are going to remind editors of policies, I suggest you familiarise yourself with them first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 4RR. If you revert again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Per BRD and considering that the IP made the initial changes, let's keep the 02:00, 9 December 2014‎ version and work it out at talk. If the IP reverts, do not revert. Somebody else ought to. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, just in case you are unfamiliar with PM, I was pinged here by another editor whose comments PM removed, but the other editor pretty much said what I would have said. PM has been blocked three times for edit warring in the last few months, the last one for a week. Each time they have a different excuse, and each time the excuse is not grounded in edit warring policy. I'm not going to act at this point. The article has been locked by another administrator. But if I had seen this earlier, I would have blocked PM either for a month or indefinitely. PM has learned nothing from their previous blocks. Again, their latest excuse is not an exemption from edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the blocklog, but do try to give editors a last chance at changing. I now think I was too lenient.

Prisonermonkeys: Policy on edit warring trumps any argument about MOS guidelines you have. I will watch your edits and block you if I see any violation of edit warring or even battleground policy. The block will be indefinite because of what I am writing now. You have been very, very clearly advised. This is your one chance to change how edit or that will be it for you and Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, I will not draw issue with anything that you just said. I will, however, draw your attention to the events of the past few hours, in which another user repeatedly edited this page despite my telling him not to in three separate places. He was never involved in the dispute on the Spectre article, and had no business commenting on it. Rather than frame his comments as objective criticism or advice, he approached Bbb23 instead of yourself or the editor who locked the Spectre article, despite the issue having been dealt with. And all of this coincided with an edit on the 2015 Formula One season article that I reverted recently. Given that this editor has a history of extremely aggressive editing, I believe that he is trying to manipulate you, Bbb23 and the editor who locked the Spectre article into focusing on my edit history when I have disputed his edits elsewhere. This may be a failure on my part to assume good faith, but I can think of no other reason as to why he would have acted the way he did. If he had a legitimate concern, he should have raised it with you at the time—he should not have approached an administration who he knew would not hesitate to block me, and he should not have ignored my requests to stop editing this page. Is there some way that you could address this issue? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some way to address this issue? Yes. We are all keeping an eye on him and will act if and when necessary. As for you, please, please do a 180 with respect to how you edit. Can you do that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, PM, I am not so easily manipulated by anyone. The other editor didn't come to me. They pinged me because they mentioned my name, and the mention made sense given their comments. They've also explained to you on their talk page why they came here, but you do have the right to remove their posts if you wish. In any event, I'm looking at your behavior, not other editors', and what you did here was blockable. You were fortunate to escape it. We'll see if you have the ability to learn from this latest experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak - thank you. I admit that sometimes I get carried away in my editing. But sometimes it seems that when I raise objections to the way things have been handled, all the admins can see is my block history. It's the reason why I'm not a fan of Bbb23; I felt he blocked me on principle last time rather than actually checking to see what had been changed. I think I have reason to at least feel aggrieved in this case, even if those grievances ultimately amount to nothing. The behaviour from Tvx1 is questionable, and he and I have a history of disagreements. You, at least, have been reasonable in all of this—I have in the past been left feeling as if any attempt to draw attention to this sort of thing will be ignored because of my history. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 blocked you last time because of 3RR over content. If it was about a BLP vio or vandalism or something, fine. But content? And what you are focusing on is how others see your history. What you are not focusing on is your history. That history includes three blocks and then a 4RR. When you see content that you do not agree with, you must try extra hard to be patient. Articles find their way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concentrating on my history in the discussion. It's done, so I move on. What more can I say? Now, in the previous case, I was concerned about the way it went down because the other editor specifically instructed me to make a particular edit on the article talk page. It was ultimately the direction that the article was going, and we were both in agreement that it was what the article needed it; the dispute was centred on our different approaches to what should be done until that edit could be made. And then, when I made that edit, he reported it as edit warring. However, when I tried to raise this objection, he repeatedly responded with my block history and even went to ANI accusing me of incivility simply because I had pointed out his hypocrisy. When I finally found an admin willing to hear me out, he lobbied for me to get a full suspension. I was left feeling as if the admins had simply blocked me on principle without considering what had actually happened, and that I was being targeted for not accepting that he was absolutely right. He told me to make the edit, presented it as the most reasonable outcome, then complained the moment I made the edit. It was an abuse of the ANI system to settle a score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to accept that other contributors MAY have a valid point, and your first reaction to the contribution of others should be one of good faith. Your reaction to my clarifications ([1] and [2]) of the 2015 tables was a disgrace. You reverted me and Twirlypen 4 times ([3], [4], [5], [6]) before trying to defend your mistake by starting a bad-faith dialogue here. Will you ever learn? Burgring (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to count. Those are not four reversions. Those are two separate reversions, the second of which was done to introduce a modified version - the solution you see now - before someone restored the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting off topic on the talk page, so I'll write here. So, looking at your contributions, I will hold my point that you technically infringed 4RR. Now, I understand the limitations of your device (I use my phone occasionally as well), but you did make two reversions twice (four reversions in total, hence 4RR) – the second pair of which you altered again over three hours later. I however, do not consider this to be retribution in this situation, for two reasons.

Firstly, the second pair of edit summaries look like reversions – to which later you appear to decide you wish to put back in an admittedly better format. Saying 'To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"' is not something I'd expect to see of a plan that involved introducing a modified version. Had you actually said that, I would have no issues with what you have done. If you had failed to get your new edits in, I'd have expected (a) an attempt to add the modified version within an hour or (b) notification on the talk page that you wanted to insert footnotes, but couldn't, within an hour or (c) asked someone else to sort out proper and correct footnotes, within an hour.

Rather, and here is the second point, you managed to violate 4RR, took to the talk page to state that you didn't want the footnotes, and later, I quote, you "modified it to be as unobtrusive as possible", which only came about after comments were made against your stance in the talk page discussion.

Overall, your modifications appear to be completely separate from the 4RR you unfortunately incurred, through the limitations of your device. But I would like to remind you that most editors would have taken the same route for a reversion in this situation – i.e. two parts – because the sections are very large, and filtering through all the coding and referencing is not the optimal way to do this. I won't take you to WP:AN3RR myself (WP:AGF), but I won't stop anyone else who decides to do so. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to count? 1. [7], 2. [8], 3. [9], 4. [10]. I make that 4. And where is the introduction of the "modified version" that you claim? I think it is you who has got some learning to do, and possibly an AWFUL lot of explaining to do too, and even a few apologies? Burgring (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that. Edits to large sections - like the team and driver table - don't always go through because the size of the section makes my browser crash. When it didn't work the first time, I let it go and came back to it. As I have said, that has been explained. I suspect that you are willfully ignoring it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanations do not hold water; no-one at Talk:2015 Formula One season#"Subject to confirmation"/"Provisional" is convinced. Even your edit summaries support the charge that you wantonly made deliberate reverts, they certainly do not corroborate your after-the-event excuses. You appear not to have taken on-board any of the wise words offered by Bbb23 and Anna Frodesiak, amongst others, above. Burgring (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PM, I'm taking this to WP:AN3RR. I am not sorry. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because Burgring cried foul over an edit summary? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote? I am an intelligent guy who happens to be fluent in English. I know you said, I know what you've actually meant and I know that you are bullshitting to try to get out of it. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong. You said it yourself—the four edits were clearly intended as two. And if you try editing from an older mobile device, you'll see that it can't handle large slabs of text in the editing window. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PM, you don't get to decide which rules apply to you or not. WP:3RR explicitly states edits, not bunches of edits. It doesn't matter that you only wanted to do two edits – you did four. We'll let the folks at WP:AN3RR decide. Oh, and I'm telling the whole story. Oh, and I'm mentioning your past history. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but don't you think it should be taken into consideration? If I had found an edit across sections like Burgring's to be objectionable and if I had the means to edit all of it at once, I would have done so and we would not be having this conversation. Look at the edits where I finally managed to reformat the footnotes—it took me four edits. Do you think I like that? No, it's frustrating enough as is (and that's before considering the browser crashes), but it's what I've got to work with. Look at my last edit on that page, detailing Gutierrez's move to Ferrari. It took two edits to get that one in because the browser crashed the first time I tried to save it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having difficulties, than ask others to lend a hand. Someone like —Gyaro–Maguus— could make that entire edit in less than a minute. That's why we are all here for. I ran into some difficulties with a template recently and two other users correctly pointed the unwanted consequences of my good faith edit out to me. An other contributor, used to the technical codings, than voluntarily stepped in to help fix the template. Tvx1 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. You could have asked someone else to do it. You could have actually stated, in the edit summary, that you were changing it to a proper footnote. You however, wrote reversion-style edit summaries, claimed you were right to remove them on the talk page, then only until three of had told you were wrong, then did you actually add the footnotes. I don't believe your story, nor do I think the people at AN3RR would either (by the way, that is a link to my filing of you edit warring). It doesn't matter anyway. Hopefully I'll see a nicer, kinder, more gentle Prisonermonkeys in a month's time. It'll be nicer, you know, without you viciously discussing every little tidbit anyway. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight: I can't make changes to an article (or at least try to) that keep the content consistent with community opinion of what the article should be, and still argue a particular point of view on the talk page, even when that point of view bears little resemblance to the edits I just made?

I find that a little confusing because just two or three days ago, you were pointing out that the problem with the WikiProject is that editors are sticking to their positions and it is spilling over into the article. At least, that's the message that I took from it. So here I am, putting that into practice, and then you turn around and say that's wrong, too? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite seriously, right now, you cannot risk anything near edit warring. Consider yourself to be on a 1RR ruling.

As for the footnote, you should have clearly showed your intentions from the edit summaries of second pair of reverts, rather than your second talk page post on the subject. Your story seriously did not appear to have the slightest ounce of truth in it and while maybe I was wrong to focus on the 3RR aspect, I could quite easily have gone to WP:ANI on the subject of WP:PA against Burgring or on the idea of disruptive editing, well, against practically everyone. (Before you ask, no, that is not a valid case for an unblock request because your block was enacted before Anna Frodesiak saw the AN3RR claim)

The thing is, this could have been avoided. If I were you, upon seeing that my reversion was reverted, I would have immediately gone to the talk page. And, upon seeing that three people strongly disagreed with me, I would have accepted defeat there and then. And moved on. Fundamentally disagreeing with the article, but knowing that consensus rules. Like Bretonbanquet on the German flag issue. He lost the argument, but accepted it.

Yes, the problem is that editors were sticking to their guns. You did precisely that, oddly, after making the changes to put our side of the argument into the article. But no, you vehemently stuck to the idea that it failed WP:WEASEL and refused to change your mind. You worked out half the issue you had, but not the other half. Read WP:HOWTOLOSE.

Finally, to help, I'm sure me and Tvx1 and anyone else will happily make any edits you feel to be necessary over the next month. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother going to ANI about Burgring. My experience of him is that he's always been like that - he takes any edits that disagree with him as an attack and as an open invitation to hit back. Like he said, he knew of the limitations that I faced, and chose to ignore it and instead frame it as an edit war. It should have been immediately obvious that those four edits were in fact two edits. Everybody else spotted it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a warning, this is very long, and I am willing to archive the April 2013 – March 2014 section of this talk page if it helps the page load faster.

I'm just going to tell you everything I think you do wrong, and more, in the hope it changes you. Firstly, I hate to say this, but the problem is you. Sure, Burgring and Eightball, for example, are no angels, but you are the problem here. I looked through this page and your archives and I counted eighteen occasions where you have been accused of edit-warring, four of which have now resulted in blocks. You are quite clearly not learning from your mistakes. Let me give you an example of how to do this:

Imagine you are, like me, a university student who likes to party. If you were refused entry into a club (or chucked out of one) for being too drunk, you could consider it a one-off. If it happens again, you may feel inclined to look into your drinking habits to ensure it doesn't happen again. If it happens a third time and you still refuse to do anything about it, then you are being an idiot because you are obviously doing something wrong. If all of these happen to occur at the same club, and you get refused entry for a fourth time even though what you did was not as bad as before, you have gained a reputation and you will be haunted by that for as long as you insist on clubbing there. Now, it may be fine to club there – on a good day, you'll get in and no-one will mind – but you will not be able to ever go there without worrying 'well, if I drink too much again before we go there, I might never be able to go back'.

Please apply to same mindset to Wikipedia. We want you to edit here – you are an immensely useful editor – but your attitude to the project is just plain wrong. On that point, your talk page discussion tactics are, quite frankly, awful. We have very few participants in talk page discussions because the arguments you raise with Tvx1 are IQ-droppingly awful, and no-one wants to get involved in a two-week-long discussion about something so insignificant as, well, I can't actually think of anything less insignificant than the alignment of the word "TBA". Let me analyse you techniques and where I feel you can do better:

Firstly, you come up with your stance. There is no problem there.

Secondly, you insist your stance is correct. You remain way too strong in this part. You need to loosen up here. Other people will disagree with you on a controversial topic.

Thirdly, you struggle to agree to compromises, let alone suggest them. A compromise is best when (a) it includes aspects from sides or (b) it changes the problem so a new solution would be required, of which it clearly is the best one. Try it properly sometime.

Fourthly, you struggle to admit defeat when the consensus is clearly against you (e.g. Talk:Mercedes AMG F1 W04). I know, it is hard. I have done so in the past. I even once changed sides and later proceeded to completely destroy one of my own arguments. But sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. You have to accept that, and know when to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Fifthly, when everything isn't going you way, you revert to shouting out every single policy or guideline you can think of. Not cool man, especially when your insistence that everyone applies WP:AGF to you is done without assuming WP:AAGF, WP:AAAGF or WP:AAGFAAGF of them.

Sixthly, you don't attack the opposition's arguments very well. Simply put, in a discussion, rather than bludgeon my point through, I attempt to stall the other side's argument by asking critical questions, which, if not answered properly, could pull down the argument. This also has the effect of me gaining an improved understanding of their argument, and in the process, mine may become weaker.

Is that all, you wonder? No. You appear to be unable to comprehend, let alone admit, that anything you do could be wrong. Now, as a guy with a high (untested) IQ, I understand. I know I am often right. I know I am likely to be one of the most intelligent people in a group, if not the most intelligent. I, however, never assume that I am definitively always right, because, you know, I am a human being, with opinions and views and whatnot. You need to admit that what you did could have been viewed as a 3RR violation (which I admit I got wrong). You need to understand that you actions, including those on the talk page were out of order.

You also need to accept that you actions can, and most likely from now on, will have consequences. You seriously run the risk of being blocked permanently. Let me use the most recent discussion:

Here is what you did: You wrote an edit summary that stated that you were reverting. Then you went onto the talk page and stated your argument for the exclusion of the information. Three of us (including me) proceeded to disagree with you. So, following this, you decided to put the information back, in the form of footnotes, stating in the edit summary that this was the start of the procedure. After this, you went back to the talk page, stated you made the change, and continued arguing your point.

Here is what you said you did: You reverted the information in order to ready the article for the footnotes, which you later added.

It just doesn't add up, does it? I do like myself of good bit of AGF, but I cannot do anything but give a bit of WP:ABF. Note there how I made no reference to any timeframe or device. Your edits are still out of order.

And finally, you need to respect the other editors. I feel like the only editor that you are willing to actually listen to and take ideas onboard from. You need to respect other people like Burgring. Yes, he (incorrectly, it turns out) accused you of violating 3RR, but your responses were not appropriate. You deal with Tvx1 like he is a nuisance. And your treatment of Joetri10 was poor.

I hope you read this in full and, should you choose to, reply in a respectful manner. Please attempt to not ignore any points, even if this forces you to make many edits. And, in case you forget, tell me if I should archive the April 2013 – March 2014 sections of this talk page, if it helps everything load quicker. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the confusion is about. But for clarity, let's clear this out: These are the contentious edits and their summaries:

14 dec 2014 19:33‎ (UTC) "That feels like WP:WEASEL"

14 dec 2014 19:34 (UTC) "Inferred by TBA status"

15 dec 2014 00:40‎ (UTC) "To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"

15 dec 2014 00:42 (UTC) "Same as before"

Crucially you only went to the talk page after making these edits. These edits were then followed 4 hours and 24 minutes later by three edits to correctly format the footnotes after you were again reverted by User:Twirlypen 2 hours 28 minutes later

15 dec 2014 05:04‎ (UTC) "If this is going to be done, it should be done like this (need to make two more edits before changes are fully visible"

15 dec 2014 04:05‎ (UTC)

15 dec 2014 04:06‎ (UTC)

Now I have two questions:

1) Can you understand why contributors could consider those first four edits as edit-warring, especially considering those summaries.

2) Why did you not indicate in your edit summary for the last two edits of that contentious set of four that you were reformatting them and thus making consistent with community opinion if that was your goal and why did you remove the content entirely in the first place if you only wanted to reformat?

I still don't think you actually broke WP:3RR because the policy clearly states a series of continuous, uninterrupted edits can be considered to be one revert. I can understand though that this is deemed to be a minor edit war. Tvx1 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, we are talking about articles that are already very, very big. And that's one of the problems I face: the mobile browser can't handle it. Eventually there comes a point where I have to find another way around it, usually by editing the section below and adding new content to the top. Regular crashes when editing a section is a sure sign that that section is reaching critical mass.

Because of this - and especially when editing articles with a high volume of traffic - I prefer to make one change at a time so that if there is a crash, I can refresh and start over and lose a minimal amount of work. So instead of simply changing the footnotes, I removed them and all of the markup that went with them (the Manor note had small font and a page break), and then I went back and added them in with the new markup. Only this time it didn't take. After two attempts, I gave up and came back later. I was actually pretty close to the city yesterday (closer than I thought I was and closer than I usually am), and given what went down in that cafe, I'm guessing that there was a lot of phone traffic that slowed my connection down, but that's just me speculating. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prisonermonkeys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block was issued because of four edits I made to the 2015 Formula One season article. Two of these edits were made to the "teams and drivers" section, and two to the "calendar" section. This is a violation of 3RR; however, the four edits were clearly intended as two edits. For the past two years (or thereabouts), I have been editing from a mobile device. Because of this, there are certain limitations that I must work around. In particular, I can only edit one section at a time—it was not possible to edit the "teams and drivers" section and the "calendar" section together the way I would be able to if I was editing from a traditional computer. During the second set of edits, I attempted to reformat the page to include a more appropriate set of footnotes. However, because the article has an extremely high volume of markup, the mobile browser cannot always handle it, and I regularly experience crashes. My solution to this problem is to edit in small doses, changing one thing at a time so that if there is a crash, I lose as little as possible. Sometimes the problem persists, in which case I leave it and come back to it later. Such was the case here, as I kept getting an error message. I came back to the article several hours later and managed to push the edits through and reformat the footnotes. However, the edit history of the article will show four individual edits made within minutes of one another; this is my attempt at working around the technical issues, changing one thing at a time. As I have been editing from a mobile almost exclusively for the past two years, these are problems that I regularly address. My edit history shows that this is a regular practice on my part, and so the four edits are clearly intended as two edits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While you technically have a point in that WP:3RR says that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert", your edit history also shows that you're all too often edit-warring without regard for WP:3RR. And while 3RR is a bright red line, you can also edit-war without crossing that line. Given your history, I fully agree with Anna Frodesiak that yes, you were edit-warring once again. Huon (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Huon - So I get blocked because I am making the effort to not edit war? Had I been able to get the footnote formatting through as originally intended, this wouldn't be a problem. Yes, my position on the talk page does not line up with the edits I made, but isn't that the lesson that the admins have been trying to teach me - that I go with the flow until that flow changes on the talk page?

Sorry, but I'm getting confused here. It's been a problem on the WikiProject of late - editors religiously stick to their positions, and any wavering from that is taken as an admission of defeat (usually by the person doing the wavering). So I'm trying to balance that out as well, and I'm effectively playing with one hand behind my back because of the limitations of my device. It may not have gone as well as it could have, but both were in the forefront of my mind when I tried to make those changes. I'm just getting a bit of a mixed message when I am told "don't edit war" and then get told "you're edit warring" even after I clearly try to change my approach. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PM, I'm going to make a few comments in no particular order. First, Anna blocked you for edit warring, not for breaching WP:3RR. Second, in my view you did breach 3RR. This was not a consecutive edit issue but supposedly caused by your inability to do all your changes at once, even though there were a lot of intervening edits by others between your sets of edits. Which leads me to my last point. Each time you are accused of edit warring, you have a different excuse. One time you claim you are allowed to do it because of policy. Another time you say it wasn't really a revert because it wasn't an obvious undo. And now we have the latest excuse: it was the device. After a while, the community tires of your excuses. Just so you know, if after this block expires, you do this again - or even come close to doing it again - the next block will probably be indefinite. Your complaints and excuses won't change that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, I am aware that "always having an excuse" is never a good position to be in. However, if you look back over some of the discussions that the WikiProject has had, you will see that issues with my device is not the hastily thought-out excuse that others suggest it is. I have been editing entirely on the mobile version for well over two years now, and this habit of consecutive edits is nothing new. If you look at the archives from about a year ago for Talk:2014 Formula One season, you will see the most prominent examples of these challenges during the notorious numbering issue where the community tried to solve it to improve readability for mobile users. Compare the markup for the table in 2015 Formula One season#Teams and drivers to the markup in the table for the table in 2015 GP2 Series season#Teams and drivers and you will see that the markup for the F1 article is considerably more complex than that used on the GP2 page. That markup is designed to make articles easier to read for mobile users without affecting users of the PC site, but the downside is that it makes for very large articles at times (we had to turn the F1 results matrices into templates to take the burden off the article), and that is not something that mobile browsers can always handle. The 2015 driver table is near the point of critical mass where I won't be able to edit it again, and the 2014 season table is impossible to edit. So this is a genuine technical issue, and one that can't be fixed. All I can do is the best I can with what I have, and in this case, I couldn't continue with the edits I wanted to make or restore the previous version. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just procedurally notifying you that you were reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]