User talk:Prisonermonkeys

Autoblock

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

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

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

Editing articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you feeling powerful again, Prisonermonkeys? I know you just want to control people and put them down. And Spindtendo, you need to mind your business. Bringing up an incident from FIVE years ago? Quite treating people like crap. If you're going to do something, do it! What am I supposed to do? Did you just lecture me about how I'm a terrible person? Am I supposed to agree? GeoJoe1000 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F1 season article names

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

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

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

Statistics at WRC season

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ways to improve 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix

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

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

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

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

Renault and Toro Rosso

There is no confirmation for the lineup of Toro Rosso right now. You're not supposed to work against other editors. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoJoe1000:

The source clearly has Christian Horner talking about Sainz.
Even if he has not been confirmed, you're deleting information—Toro Rosso under contract to use Renault engines—that has not changed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horner clearly isn't a good source anymore, but I agree about Renault. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start working collaboratively, you know. You were the one who lost last time. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? The admins might have accepted your reticence at the time, but a quick check of your edit history reveals that you have a documented history of aggressive editing and conflict with other editors. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have issues with power. I'd check into those before I talk to Oshwah about your behavior. You should also start using the talk section of the page. Keep your personal issues out of this for once. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who broke 3RR. And this is not personal. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your behaviour, which is appalling. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly making it personal. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to find it hard to explain why you refuse to work with me. You should try harder in the future. You clearly haven't made any improvements. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]