User talk:MonkeyKingBar

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Jack Layton appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Paul Martin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Kuro

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Pioneer Kuro--The content seems pretty substantial.Jipinghe (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pioneer Kuro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pioneer Kuro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Kuro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alexandria (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on General Electric GE90. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your addition to Audi A6 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You cannot copy/paste directly from a source as you did with http://autos.aol.com/cars-Audi-A6-2009/expert-review/ Biker Biker (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Rob Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Brown (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) 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited PlayStation 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Theft Auto (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) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

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. 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. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Good job with the Dell page. Seems that you've changed your ways! Good on you. :-D Math321 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Minas Morgul. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa 159

Hi, your edit is too straight copy from Italiaspeed, looks like staight copy, you need to use more ur own words. rgds -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Jade (Mortal Kombat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Combo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing my edits in my own article

Go and start your own. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also stop using bare URLs and unmarked dead links, such as you did in Max Payne. And don't use italics for websites. Geez. And of course: don't use non-existing references (such as in the case of the ref "edge"). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Uncharted, and assertion of socking

Hello MonkeyKingBar. The dispute at Uncharted is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Uncharted Not sure if I'd call it vandalism, but it's a definite edit war. You may participate there if you wish. There has been a claim made in the edit summaries at Uncharted that you are a sock of User:GoldDragon. If true, this behavior would be as explained in 2011 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. You can respond to the socking charge when you reply at WP:AN3 if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the title of the edit warring report, so it is now at Wikipedia:AN3#Dispute at Uncharted reported by User:72.136.49.248 (Result: ). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Feature phone, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. mabdul 11:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on Mabdul's page: "Go visit a cell phone store" is not a reliable source. You have to provide sources to back up any material you add to an article. 38.108.87.20 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited Audi S8, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cloverleaf and Audi R8 (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) 10:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MonkeyKingBar. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

mabdul 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Audi S8

My dear sir, the Audi S8 is simply a somwehat sportier version of the A8. It differs not a whit in any field that matters, sharing every piece of bodywork and even half of the name. Instead of reverting blindly, refer to the debates at hand, if necessary begin a new conversation. But repeated reverts in spite of existing consensus flies in the face of WP guidelines. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subaru Outback

I would like to personally thank you for stating your opposition to the merger instead of just overhauling the article. However, it seems that OSX and Mr.choppers do not seem to care about our concerns or the concerns of others who either posted them or overhauled the article without posting them. Thank you for being more mature than OSX and Mr.choppers. I don't know what to do with them at the moment, but i do see a report filed against both them in the near future. Anyway, thank you again for stating your opposition. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad warning concerning you and other editors

I strongly suggest that all editors involved in this edit war view and take heed of the warning I've given at the edit warring noticeboard. --slakr^\ talk / 07:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armored cruiser

Thanks for adding to this article. However, there need to be citations as to where this info came from, even if the knowledge is fairly general. Otherwise, there's a pretty good chance another editor may delete it. Could you please help by providing the source info? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you or another editor mentioned the difference between armored cruisers and heavy cruisers is not the point. The point is whether the info is cited—any info, period. The only exception is in the lede, which is basically a summary of the article at large and with the understanding that information mentioned there will be covered and cited in the body of the article. Bottom line: Would you please add citations for where you got the info you added? Jonyungk (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning against going against community consensus

Hi, I ask that you do not go against the consensus here in recreating Subaru Legacy Outback as it is against wiki policy to do so. You have made your position clear, but nine editors have expressed their support for the merger whereas only three opposed. This means that only 25 percent of editors supported your proposal. Moreover, in the previous discussion, it was determined that a merger was the best option. You cannot hold up a conversation until it sways to support your position. If you continue to disruptively edit here at Wikipedia I will be contacting the relevant department to initiate a block on editing. It is not appropriate to go against a community consensus—the bedrock of Wikipedia—and impose your own desired outcomes that go against such community dialogue.

Again, I ask that you refrain from editing disruptively and make your case on the talk page. If you have a good argument I can assure you people will change their stance and vote to demerge the articles. It is not about what you want personally, it's what editors by-and-large want.

Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he has a good argument, by doing this, you are preventing him from making his case. You are just trying to make sure that anybody who disagrees with you does not get a say. A block would be a terrible move, and like the report made against me, it would completely backfire on you. I urge you to reconsider blocking him. The talk page is for general discussion and debate about the article. He is both discussing and debating, and I do not believe that you have a right to prevent him from doing so. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Congrats on making it a full 24 hours without starting a new edit war. Seems that you've changed your ways! Good on you. :-D Bonky the Bonky Blue (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent editing

Can you please refrain from editing Arsène Wenger and 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season, both of which have taken considerable effort and time to get to where they are today. The former, you have chosen to revert without any edit summary and the latter, you have moved around paragraphs and added a Goal.com poll which has no more legitimacy than the Channel 4 one. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Channel 4 viewers rated the team's comeback in the Champions League final at number four on the list of 100 Greatest Sporting Moments", is more creditable then a Goal.com poll, done by a few journalists. It was voted by the public for one. There is enough polls ranking United's achievements in that paragraph alone, if you want to improve the article, I suggest looking at the peer review done a few months ago. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season talkpage. Can you please stop reverting changes. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Penalty shoot-out (association football) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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.

Your recent editing history at Belgium national football team shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 99.224.54.167 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on the talk page for Belgium national football team in an effort to put an end to the edit war there. 99.224.54.167 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 09:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]