User talk:Monkeysmashingkeyboards: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Donald Trump, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As per MOS:BIB, “Bibliography” is discouraged because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article. Peaceray (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and thank you reminding me – It’s what I’ve seen on other articles, and so I erroneously assumed that that was the MOS. Thanks for the pointers. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Monkeysmashingkeyboards. Thanks for the ping from this subpage of yours. I think, but am not certain, that there might be a problem with maintaining that sort of page content about another editor as one of your subpages. It is true, as you mentioned on the subpage that most or all of it derives from the discussion section I myself created at User talk:2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E#Pages to monitor, but there is, I believe, a subtle distinction in how Wikipedia guidelines views that page, and your subpage.

Here’s why: a User talk page is the proper venue, per WP:TALK, to raise WP:CONDUCT issues about a user, and that section lists articles edited by *that* user, therefore, it is okay to raise conduct-related issues there. (Well, not quite that *exact* IPv6 user, but rather the articles edited by the CIDR/64 extension of that IPv6, which it is safe to say, after examining the articles and the pattern, is in fact, the same person sitting behind the keyboard, even if their IPv6 varied a bit within the narrow, /64 range.) Notice that I did not identify any of those edits as being by Starry Pine, although the blocking admin in the previous section did make that assertion, however admins have tools not available to me, so I played it safe and did not τonnect the two.

Now, when you adopted that list and placed it your user space, it is no longer on that user’s Talk page, where Conduct issues about that user belong, but in *your* user space. This can be seen as problematic, especially if the page remains there for a long time, as it can be seen as a kind of attack page, Wall of Shame, or whatever you want to call it. I believe such pages are given a pass even in one’s userspace, if they are there for a relatively short time, while you are actively preparing a case, say, to bring to AN/I about them in the very near future, and the subpage is kind of your scratchpad for building your case. (Mostly editors do that sort of case-based data gathering offline, but there have been cases of editors preparing it transparently, on-wiki.) The other thing is, that you made a clear connection between the IPv6 and the registered user, which presumably you have no way of being sure about, although it does echo the blocking admin’s words. Anyway, I think you should think about what the purpose is of that subpage, and you should contact an admin and announce the page, to be completely transparent about it, and ask them for advice about whether you should keep that kind of info in a subpage of your userspace or not.

By the way, being a new editor, there is no way you could have known about this so you are not in trouble, and there is nothing to worry about; it is truly a very subtle point about the proper venue for gathering certain kinds of information, and I am not certain I even have it right myself, and I’ve been around for years. So it’s no big deal, just ask an admin about it, and they’ll advise you how to proceed, assuming anything needs to be done at all. One way to do that, is by {{ping}}ing the admin who blocked the IPv6 on that page, and another way, is just to ask your question below this, and tack on the template, {{Admin help}} somewhere in your message, and an uninvolved admin will drop by here and advise you. Thanks for all your contributions, and feel free to contact me any time. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers – I’ll probably mark that page with U0 for CSD, I don’t foresee me using it at all in the future anyways. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the best. To close this out: what you do offline is your own business; so keep whatever notes you feel like there. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this source count? I want to know before adding it to the page. [1] Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be good! Go ahead. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly didn’t play in any of the Argos’ games this year. I know that the CFL policy is waiting until the end of the season to update stats for some reason, but this is fairly common knowledge so I figure it shouldn’t need a source. 2601:647:4D7C:8BB0:41B7:CAAE:EC43:73D8 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source is good anyways – simply citing a reliable stats website is fine. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

peak 155.190.1.7 (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

indeed monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you reversed an edit I made to the Renovations section of the page on Mausoleum of Shajar al-Durr, stating that I may have been attempting to censor relevant information. However, I had not removed that information but transferred it from Restorations to Contributions to Egyptian Architecture where discussions regarding a later sultan’s influence on Egyptian architecture is more relevant.

—NotCarlo (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, yeah. My bad – I’ve undone my revert. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the VRTS tickets on Commons and explain to me why my edits are unconstructive. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad – I accidentally pressed my reversion hotkey and didn’t get around to undoing my reversion. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My bad. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should’ve counted, or waited for the IP to get banned. That’s on me. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daniel Quinlan, I think the user can be unblocked. Most edits by the user are fine, and it seems very unlikely the user is going to be disruptive. – @Monkeysmashingkeyboards: Thanks for fighting vandalism! A few suggestions: Slow down a bit. 🙂 In some cases, you reverted edits that were actually OK. For example, this one: Information in the lead section doesn’t have to be sourced directly, as long as it’s sourced further down in the text, which is the case here. See MOS:LEAD. – Or this one: The user did provide a source, I checked it, it’s fine. The user (probably a Vancouver hipster) also used a humorous style which doesn’t belong in a Wikipedia article (we’re a very serious bunch here), but that’s another issue. – And of course, after your second revert, you should simply have waited for the IP that vandalized the Khaled Juffali article to get blocked. I know leaving an article in a vandalized state can be irritating, but it usually doesn’t take long. – Anyway, thanks again, and happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. Cheers¡ monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Monkeysmashingkeyboards, this is not necessarily only about the three-revert rule. Edit warring is disruptive even if you make “only” three reverts; the three-revert rule doesn’t allow edit warring as long as it stays below a specific number of reverts per day. Also, there can be a one-revert restriction in some articles and entire contentious topics (see WP:CT/A-I), and WP:BLPRESTORE prohibits restoring biographical content about a living person if it was removed in good faith. Do you understand this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had watchlisted this page. All good then. I see you’ve been unblocked already, nothing left for me to do here – although you may like to remove or archive all of this as it’s not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather the blocks and stuff be at the front of my talk page instead buried in tunnels of archives, so people don’t have to do any digging around – thanks for your consideration, and have a great day! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(wanted to add this, computer crashed during typing) And regarding BLPRESTORE, it’s questionable whether “good faith” actually came from the user you reverted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you clarify? Which revert are you talking about in particular? Thanks. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You’ve been whacked with a wet trout.

Don’t take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Edit warring… I get to trout you now! Hope you get unblocked _{and retain rollback}! Sad seeing your name crossed out. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 20:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silly things happen, I guess. Thanks for the condolences. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I suggest you prevent your monkey from smashing your keyboards and violating the 3RR rule again. Also, looks like you still have your rollback! (I don’t. {{sad face emoji}}) HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 01:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that makes it sound like you lost your rollback in a tragic accident, but a quick user rights scan is inconclusive. Hmmmmmmm. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 02:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder… Some pesky sysadmin must have acted in bad faith and deleted it from my user rights log… HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 02:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge admins… Because deleting things from logs is totally real! —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 02:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

( peanut gallery comment) please have your civilized discussion over on User_talk:Jimbo Wales instead of my talk page, thanks.

In other words: “Get off my lawn!!!” monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe I have to remind users of this, but your decision to add back an antisemitic POV on a film about antisemitism and then to present it as “critical reception” is incorrect. Just because something is adequately sourced, does not mean it is reputable.

Critical reception for films largely centers on criticism from critics at major sites, such as those from Rotten Tomatoes. Not from antisemitic organizations.

I am going to include this below, and I am going to remove it again. Re-insert this POV Battleground information at your own peril.

Wikipedia is not a battleground
Shortcuts
WP:BATTLEGROUND
WP:BATTLE
“WP:BATTLE” redirects here. For the essay about Battle for Dream Island, see Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Behave
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts, nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions is in direct conflict of Wikipedia’s policies and goals, as well as Wikipedia’s founding principles. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, you should also avoid advancing your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia’s fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.
Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, its editors, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. Truthreconciliation18 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception just means what critics think of it. The statement that you removed is well-sourced, albeit biased. However being biased doesn’t mean it is a WP:BATTLE, and doesn’t mean you can censor these opinions. What you are doing is censorship, and if you cannot understand the concept of other people having opinions that disagree with you, you are not competent enough to edit this encyclopedia. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a civil response, or an attempt to understand what WP: BATTLE refers to. Truthreconciliation18 (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding more positive feedback to better represent the critical response to this film, then. If you remove it, I will ensure it is re-inserted, otherwise, you will be guilty of same. Unless you want your competence to be questioned Truthreconciliation18 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the personal attack, but you should avoid editing these topics for now. Your edits are biased, and removing valid criticism will only skew the article’s neutrality further. Feel free to edit elsewhere – I won’t prevent you from editing this article, just know that you are biased(I am, too – everyone is), and editing elsewhere will be better for all of us. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we can agree that your edits are biased? I added another review, from a verified critic from Rotten Tomatoes. It is illogical that this film should have more negative feedback than positive feedback on its page, when every other film that has a “generally favourable” rating from both critics and audience members has more positive than negative feedback. Ironically, this is exactly the content of the film, that calls into question why such bias is acceptable when Jews are involved, and it seems lost on some.

Perhaps it wasn’t clear. Several valid criticism was maintained on the page, and I never attempted to remove such paragraphs. The paragraph in question contains inflammatory language, unsubstantiated claims, and reports POV as facts (e.g. Israel “genocide,”). Calling this “valid criticism” is inappropriate.

I would also challenge you to find any other film “critical reception” section where comments of racist organizations are left unopposed, unedited.

This paragraph is indeed a WP:BATTLE, but it was not started by me. Removing this paragraph or editing its wording would be asked of any writer who presented biased statements as facts. Truthreconciliation18 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF. Additionally, there is a genocide in Gaza committed by Israel, according to a RfC. On top of this, there are reports from many reliable, independent sources that support this. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi monkey_smashing^keyboards thanks for your good faith reversion to my amendments to Coulsdon, stating that citations should be provided. I have provided citations to a number of the changes. Others are self evident. For example, the fact that there are two train stations in Coulsdon is readily ascertainable from a look at google maps. However, all changes seem to have been reverted as a batch. Is there any particular one that is problematic or is there a problem with the citations provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewf1103 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That was my mistake, feel free to undo my revert. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do regards User:Andrewf1103 Andrewf1103 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do regards User:Andrewf1103 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewf1103 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is in part a clean start, I’ve edited a couple years back under a different name. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of reverting my edits on Global Game Jam, you reintroduced a red link, primary sources, twitter links, and bare links. You also reintroduced a YouTube link, which I had replaced with a source that’s actually reliable Countglob (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry – go ahead and add them back. Note that red links and primary sources are fine on Wikipedia, and don’t need to be removed. One source is better than no source. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was absolutely not vandalism or non-neutral revision. I worked for an hour to rephrase and remove unnecessary words without changing any of the meaning.

What made you think it was tendentious? Perhaps the couple of sentences describing Knox’s biblical point of view? Accurately describing a historical subject’s passionate beliefs in vigorous, but not hyperbolic, language can still be neutral. Magyar25 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might’ve been a mistake, and if that is the case, I thoroughly apologize. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Quick contributions scan is inconclusive, Knox’s First Blast not a page, no reverted edits by you, are you sure you have the right person? Your last reverted edit was Special:Diff/1309516820, on 4 September. —pro–anti–air ––>(talk)<–– 22:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might’ve been an IP who signed in or similar? I think I recall reverting something related to Knox today. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a minor thing, but it’s still inaccurate (historically) to associate this post-punk band (with a dream pop leaning) with the shoegaze scene, when that scene consisted of other musicians. AllMusic describes them as “a dark hybrid of the Cocteau Twins and Joy Division/New Order”[2]. Their RYM page also doesn’t list “shoegaze” under Genres or under any of their albums [3]. P.S. Forgot to sign the message previously Buf92 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lowlife is still considered shoegaze by many fans after a desperate hour of digging around I can’t find any sources that state Lowlife is Shoegaze. Go ahead and remove it. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was mistakenly taken for a vandal at first. Yes, some newcomers may consider them shoegaze, but they were never part of the original shoegaze scene. Buf92 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is already in the article, and has been for some years: <ref name=”Bethencourt2014″>{{cite book |last=Bethencourt |first=Francisco |title=Racisms: From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century |publisher=Princeton University Press |date=2014 |pages=90–91 |isbn=9781400848416 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_fSKAQAAQBAJ}}</ref>. The text I restored was also in the article for some years, written by someone who had read that source. The text added in 2024 with the edit summary “Made it closer to the Portuguese version and corrected a mistake. João de Sá wasn’t a victim of racial abuse” is not justified by the source. 81.187.237.192 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Go ahead and undo my changes, and have a great day. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]