User talk:Rusf10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 22 December 2019

RNN

Hello. There was a significant amount of outdated and erroneous information on the page prior to the updates given. When you reverted to the old version, you simply put the errors back. Please undo your moves. Thank you. DKischel —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are biased and read like an advertisement. The first sentence is " RNN (Regional News Network) is an award-winning premium news content producer that programs ", are you kidding?, what makes it premium, compared to the other local stations, its news department is a joke. It only has a half-hour opinion talk show anchored by the owner of the station. Being that your only contribution to Wikipedia is RNN, I have to believe you either work for them or are being paid by them. Is your real name Richard French?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a google search and found your linkedin profile Danny, clearly a conflict of interest, promote your tv station somewhere else, not on wikipedia

Speedy deletion of Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist), to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Corzine

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Jon Corzine, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dppowell (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamady N'Diaye

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Hamady N'Diaye. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Inside Rutgers Football

The article Inside Rutgers Football has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GrapedApe (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

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

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Ways to improve Knowledge TV

Hi, I'm Stausifr. Rusf10, thanks for creating Knowledge TV!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please include more references for this article.

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.

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teddy Turner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican and The Citadel (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) 11:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fox Sports Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notre Dame (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) 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anderson Street (NJT station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Record (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) 19:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:USCable.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:USCable.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sports Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State (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) 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Teddy Turner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teddy Turner 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/Teddy Turner 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 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. BDD (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Just Once, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dude (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) 09:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage of WZME ME-TV in New York Tri-State Area...

For your information WZME is now carried only over-the-air and on cable systems in Connecticut and in some areas of Massachusetts which cannot receive the signal from WCVB in Boston. Cable systems in New York City (Cablevision & Time Warner), in Central and Northern New Jersey (Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner & Service Electric) have officially dropped WZME from their channel lineup and added the newly signed on WJLP which is licensed to Middletown, New Jersey and transmitting from the Condé Nast Building in Midtown Manhattan (New York City) when they were officially designated the new New York City affiliate for Me-TV. It is entirely possible that management at WZME have not yet had the chance to change their website to reflect the loss of the New York City market or they are unwilling to change it which would be deceptive IMHO. In any case the changes I made were appropriate. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have Verizon FiOS in NJ and still receive WZME, nothing has changed. Can you provide any references showing otherwise? The channel was never carried on most New Jersey cable systems and even some New York systems. A station cannot just change markets without also changing cities. If it claims must-carry status on cable (which I believe WZME does) It can force cable systems within a certain radius to carry it (not sure if 40 or 50 miles. Since its transmitter is not located in Bridgeport, but further to the northeast, this makes it receivable in parts of MA, which means it must be carried the as well. There was at one time a plan to move the transmitter to Manhattan. Not sure if this plan is abandoned now? That would have made it a true NY station. Because of the transmitter location WZME can't claim must carry in most of NJ or even parts the New York City itself. The only reason I have it on FiOS is because they have Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)large headends and therefore carry channels for the entire area even if not necessary.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the FCC rule 50 miles from the transmitter site. WJLP transmits from Midtown Manhattan and therefore is closer for coverage to the New York City market. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M&T

Come to the talk page. We have cookies. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RadioShack → RS Legacy Corporation

Where is the discussion that established a consensus for this move? And how was this title selected? There does not seem to have ever been a corporation by that name. General Ization ^Talk 16:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a real corporation, http://www.wsj.com/articles/radioshack-creditors-move-closer-to-bankruptcy-settlement-1437659365 and http://www.marketwatch.com/story/radioshack-creditors-closer-to-bankruptcy-deal-2015-07-23. It holds the leftover assets and liabilities of Radio Shack after the stores were sold. The new Radio Shack needs an article too, but the history needs to stay with the old company as the stores are moving in a very different direction.

Yes, I saw SEC filings, etc. using the new name. However, I'm not sure that the article needs to move as yet; the new company's "new direction" is not yet notable, and RadioShack is still the WP:COMMONNAME for this company, whatever the bankruptcy court calls the entity. Where did the move discussion take place? General Ization ^Talk 17:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even the sources you cited above are (still) referring to the company by its common name, RadioShack, not by the name of the party to the bankruptcy. General Ization ^Talk 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the stores are now owned by a different company and have already begun to make Sprint a major part of their branding. I was just trying to update an outdated article. If you want to move it back and sit on it for a few weeks that's fine with me.

I would strongly recommend it be moved back. "The defunct retailer, which has officially changed its name, now calls itself RS Legacy Corp. The revived store chain goes by the name of RadioShack, while RS Legacy, the shell left behind in bankruptcy, sorts through cash and unpaid bills in an effort to wrap up the old company's affairs." This article is not an article about the shell company created purely for the convenience of the court and creditors. General Ization ^Talk 17:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Referring to another editor as a "liberal tool who wants to portray [article subject] as an angel" (as you did here) runs afoul of all these policies. Thank you. --Neutrality^talk 06:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between personal attacks (such as those on gender, race, and religion) and calling someone out on blatant political bias. I'm sorry I hurt you and your friend's feelings.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't about feelings, it just wouldn't be practical to have Trump clones repeating patterns of his vitriol. -- Menti fisto 02:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you best friends with these guys too? If I'm to believe that my comments were wrong and offensive, yours are equally so. Practice what you preach!--Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

You claim to know the BLP--good. Only warning. Such speculation is not acceptable here. Neutrality, you've been looking at the article--if you think this did not contain a BLP violation, let me know and reinstate the remark I redacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you can't take criticism can you? I didn't add this into the article, I was simply trying to make a point on the talk page. You guys don't believe in free speech, do you?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to make this about opinion or POV, but it was a clear-cut BLP violation--so much so that another admin scrubbed it from the history. Also, no, this is not a free-speech zone, and limits are set by, among others, WP:BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was clear and you guys erased my comment because you don't want to deal with it. The question was, how do you know whether what was claimed 20 years ago is more credible that what is claimed now? Sources don't become outdated, they are valid until someone discredits them. Alicia Machado could just as well be not telling the truth about Donald Trump now as she may have been 20 years ago. You don't know and neither do I. That's the point (regardless of what involvement Hillary Clinton, may or may not have). Stop deleting anything that doesn't go along with what you want to believe.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rusf10. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 January

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 Sanctuary city page, your edit caused an unsupported 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) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James Robart. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have been here long enough to know the rules and guidelines. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know anything about boy scouting. No one ever was a eagle scout (unless they are dead). Once you become an eagle scout, you are an eagle scout for life (yes, even if you're 70 years old like this man). Why you don’t say someone was an Eagle Scout To say he was an eagle is incorrect.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Cub Scout in 1941-42, so I know a bit about BSA history. As for the point you make, that is like saying "Once a Marine, always a Marine." It is just so much hype, really useful for building cohesion, but not at all useful for getting real facts into an encyclopedia. Thanks anyway for sticking up for your viewpoint. II am sure every Eagle Scout appreciates it. Sincerely, an ex-Cub who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources / BLP

You have previously been warned about WP:BLP and WP:RS. In This edit and this edit you cite to "Nation One News," which is some sort of bizarre fringe pro-Trump blog/website. That's nowhere near a reliable source, and you need to stop inserting it. Just because something is on the Internet doesn't mean it is reliable. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page--Rusf10 (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain West

Did not want to revert your edit because I may be wrong but AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain West is available in my current location, Ontario, California, located in the western part of San Bernardino County. I put the zip codes of cities in the western part of the county like Montclair, Chino Hills, Chino, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland, on the "channel finder" on the network website, it says it is available in all those cities. The network though is not available in any city west of Pomona (LA County) or south of Jurupa Valley (Riverside County), two cities that border San Bernardino County. I don't know if that means the network should be included in the LA TV Template though. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that its an error by AT&T. What I've read says the Golden Knights territory only includes the eastern part of San Bernardino County, which would make sense as not to interfere with the Kings and Ducks primary market. The only other possibility is that the network is offered with the golden knights games blacked out, but that doesn't make much sense either. I just can't see how this network would be offered right outside of LA.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a while to reply because I thought we were getting AT&T SportsNet by mistake, but no were still able to see the Golden Knights matches on the network. It is interesting because we're still able to see the Ducks and Kings games. In this territory map you can clearly see the network is available in all of San Bernardino County. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 06:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense to me, but if that's what it is, go ahead and mention it to the article. I probably wouldn't include it in the LA TV template though because most of that area doesn't receive the channel.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYC template

This is all something you need to bring up on the template's talk page. We can't change it all around without a clear consensus. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on the talk page, check it out.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia 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/Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia 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 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. Comatmebro (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rusf10. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pearson

Hi. I wonder if you think the current incarnation of this bio passes muster? Castlemate (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harmony Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On-demand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Rusf10.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A shining model for WP:BEFORE

I've mentioned WP:BEFORE as a bedrock principal of Wikipedia deletion policy and it's still unclear to me that you understand or abide by it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry DeCaire (2nd nomination), a nomination where you have participated, that provides an excellent model for fulfilling its obligations. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:Mr. Sohn, if you'd like me to stay off your talk page, how about you stay off mine. I know you're upset and like talking down to people (because it makes you feel important), but quite frankly I do not care what you think.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at SPI

Please do not use SPI as a forum for dispute resolution, particularly when that dispute does not involve the editor accused of sockpuppetry. Your exchange of comment with Unscintillating at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernice McCullers is not relevant to determining whether or not Bernice McCullers has misused multiple accounts, so I have removed it. Please settle your differences with Unscintillating elsewhere, ideally here or on their talk page. Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Unscintillating loves to bring irrelevant things into a discussion, I shouldn't have replied.--Rusf10 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nominations

Hello, Rusf10. I noticed your recent deletion nominations. According to the AfD Stats tool you started nominating articles for deletion in November of last year and currently only about 54% of the AfD discussions for these nominations have closed as "delete". About four years ago I started with an even worse record for nominating articles at AfD which caused me to be more cautious about the deletion requirements, nominating procedures, and notability guidelines. This increased care has made my nominations much more likely to be agreed with by other editors. AfD can be one of the more contentious areas of the project and it never hurts to step away and take a break from it. Unless the article is so truly awful that it qualifies for CSD or PROD, there probably won't be any harm to the project if a poor article remains for another day or week. I hope you have a happy and productive new year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend :-) : CAT:NN (articles tagged for notability) and CAT:PROMO (articles tagged for promotional tone). Some other candidates: List of Y Combinator startups; Category:Bitcoin companies; WP:COIN (conflict-of-interest noticeboard); etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to slow down on nominating article for deletions. I just came upon Reformed Church of Highland Park at AfD. The article was strongly sourced when you nominated it. But you have continued to argue with the editors iVoting Keep in ways that indicate that you need to become more familiar with standards of notability. For example, you argue that "Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church.",[1] but a notable minister does contribute to notability. Similarly with your argument about the building, [2], secondary, WP:RS discussing a church's building do contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 - Mr X 🖋 12:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSDs on soft redirects

Hi there. Please remember that per WP:SOFTREDIRECT, only R-criteria apply to soft redirects. Also, all those taggings were faulty anyway because Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey exists as a suitable merge/redirect target per WP:ATD. Regards So Why 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McMillan Memorial Library

FYI -- 32.218.38.11 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of slavery in New Jersey

There are open questions regarding your edits to History of slavery in New Jersey (from which you removed vast amounts of referenced material) awaiting your response at Talk:History of slavery in New Jersey. Are you going to answer them? Djflem (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Cemetery and Mount Olivet Cemetery

You are of the opinion that "two articles, don't mean two votes". You are "sure the closing admin can figure it out". The AfD nomination made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery in which you included the recently "closed as keep" Mount Olivet Cemetery (Newark), has the potential for confusion among discussion participants and adds a extra burden to the closing administrator. For those reasons, and for sake of transparency and good faith, I would ask that you separate the two nominations.Djflem (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WP:DELAFD states "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."Djflem (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing error

You have apparently made a formatting mistake here in your non-admin closure, which (I assume inadvertently) has included the following discussions as well. Please fix it.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now sorted - if by you, many thanks.Eustachiusz (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I apologize. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future, but if I do something like that again, feel free to correct it yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion proposal of List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey

With regard to your tagging for speedy deletion at List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey, which has been rejected, you state in your edit summary: "there was no consensus to create this article as a spinout" and and that "it was proposed only 10 days ago and the discussion only had three participants"

Firstly, given your initiation and vested involvement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive226#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), might one assume (mightn't one?) that you were aware of the notification made there and on the Monmouth County, New Jersey page on 5 February 2018 to split the information? The discussion to was brought to the Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey on [February 8 2018. The page was created 18 February 2018. I direct you to Wikipedia:CLOSEAFD (with which one might assume you're familiar?) which states that A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours), and which one might take as a guideline for closing discussions. What in your opinion would be the required time for a split discussion? Why was 10 days unsatisfactory?

Secondly, there were 4 particpants, including the proposer (who one might assume thinks it's a good idea, since they are proposing it). Another, making 5, did so after the split took place, confirming the decision to do so. In your opinion how many participants would be required? Why was this unsatisfactory?

Lastly, why would you choose for a speedy deletion if your concern about trying to build consensus and involving more participants?

Thanks,Djflem (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: There are a few things wrong here. Let's start with the arbitration enforcement that you mentioned. First, the purpose of the AE was not to determine whether or not an article such as this can exist, it was to enforce sanctions on a user who violated his ban on creating article. Second, the Split tag was placed by USER:Francis Schonken, but he never took a position on whether it should be split or not. I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing, but read his comments in the AE and you will see he discusses different possibilities without taking a position on any of them. What you need to know is that by restoring RAN's content, You (not him) are now taking responsibility for any possible WP:COPYVIO.

The next problem is given Francis didn't take a position, there were only three votes (alansohn's vote came after the fact). Two supporting the split and one opposing. That is not a consensus. As per WP:SPLIT "Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion, or a bold split that was contested usually results in the article remaining whole. "--Rusf10 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRODding the list article with a CSD rationale does not seem like a viable route here, although I have sympathy for Rusf10's approach.
It seems best to check the content of the list article for COPYVIO (and WP:close paraphrasing), especially as some other articles which may fall short of such guidance have been merged into the list since I adopted it in the County article.
Otherwise, like Rusf10 said: the one who split it takes responsibility (which follows from the RAN ArbCom case), and it is best to know that. Frankly, I'm glad I don't have to assume that responsibility any more. I only realised that that responsibility is a bit trickier than I thought after having merged the former Sheriff article to the County article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The questions remain unanswered:

What would be the required time for a split discussion? And why? Why was 10 days unsatisfactory?
How many participants would be required? and why? Why was this 3 unsatisfactory?
Why choose for a speedy deletion if you're concern about trying to build consensus and involving more participants?
Why has consensus not be reached?

Djflem (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I not going to keep repeating myself, just because you don't understand. I've already answered these questions. It should be obvious that you need more than just two people who agree to achieve a consensus.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scott Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your yeoman's work

I want to thank you for your yeoman's work in cleaning Wikipedia. You have faced many malicious and uncivil attacks from the die hard defenders of creating absurd number of articles on minor politicians while we have to struggle to have an article on the Minister of Foriegn Affairs of Mongolia survive, even facing that individual being run through a speedy deletion procedure. Again thankyou for your work, and do not let the defenders of minor articles at all cost get you down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

County Executive of Atlantic County

As creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, wish to inform you that while the discussion banner on page clearly says "Feel free to improve the article" and Wikipedia:EDITATAFD supports that; Wikipedia:EDITATAFD also says "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." Considering that this page was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018, it seems a page move would not be unjustified since the scope/intervening edits have clarified it, as is normal with newly-launch articles? The hasty deletion tag/time to wait is clearly an unnecessary burden to the workings of creating an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? Talk:County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey#Discussion/page move?. Djflem (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:I would agree that you are WP:WIKILAWYERING the shit out of this. There is no time requirement for bringing an article to AfD, so that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the article was created in direct response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Levinson in order to circumvent what would eventually become the end result of that discussion, deletion. That is the reason it was nominated. As for moving the article, I could care less, as long as the proper notification is put on the discussion page. I'm not you, so I'm not going wikilawyer that the page should be subject to procedural deletion because it was moved.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Senecal (2nd nomination)

I withdrew this AfD and closed it as keep even though you had !voted delete on it. This is generally against convention so I am letting you know as a courtesy. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#New Jersey-related AfDs and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I have not dived into all the diffs so I'm not going to judge who is correct, but here is a potential path that will deescalate things. Continue nominating pages except for those by the one editor. When you find their creations, add them to a user subpage, perhaps sorted by deletion rational. Let other editors nominate them one by one or in bundles off that list. If you prove you do well on pages by other random editors, and the ones you identify on the list generally get deleted when nominated by others, we will all see you were correct. See how the other editor reacts to the noms. Placing them on a list will also give the other editor a notification and some time to address deficiencies before the actual nomination. This might take a little longer to get a deletion but the opportunity to bundle and have drama free AfDs is worth it. All the sniping is going to end badly. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:- That sounds like a great suggestion, but its not that simple. Only a small handful of the nominations were pages created by that user. He claims ownership over a broad category of articles (including ones that he has not even edited). For example [3] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op [4] and others. That particular editor never even edited those articles, not even once. So what am I supposed to do, not nominate any article that I think he might possibly object to?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is some real rudeness there. A merge vote is close to a delete vote so don't fight it. You redirect the page and may or may not add anything to the target. There is no AfMerge to go to so... carry on. You are being accused of stalking so go out of your way not to be seen to be stalking. If you find something created or largely edited by him add to list. I'll watch the list and maybe ofhers will. Everything else, make your nomination and let the fools be fools, move on to the next article. Everyone else will quickly tire of the foolish posts. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:- You're right there is no AfMerge, so I don't see it as a bad thing to bring an article to AfD and it results in a merge. At least, there was community input on it. You get what I'm saying, how the hell do I know what he's going to object to? But at least for articles he created, I can start a list, so you or someone else can nominate. I'll ping you again, once the list has been created.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't know. If you don't directly nom his pages, he follows you to AfD after AfD, and you don't respond to his attacks, he's either going to tire of picking on you or build a great WP:STALKING case. You know about this tool? [5] If he continues to follow you to AfDs and if you are not following him around, the tool will show that. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I'm curious about the idea of Rusf10 making a list described above. We already have tags such at Template:Notability. There are large (50,000+ articles) backlogs at categories like Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues, and Category:Articles that may contain original research. The size of the backlog suggests that these tags often do not instigate cleanup. Rusf10 making a list of articles they think should be nominated for AfD provides, in effect, another list similar to those categories. Even though I don't believe those tags are very effective at leading to improvement, I think if Rusf10 is adding articles to some list, they should also tag the articles. Tags generally shouldn't be removed unless the article improves or there is another change that effects the applicability of a tag. Thus tags give Rusf10 an opportunity to inform editors watching an article that they have concerns and gives those editors a chance to improve articles. Another editor removing a tag signals back that they have improved the article or for some other reason think the tag doesn't or no longer applies. A tag is softer than a prod but more global than a list in userspace. Of course, following this proceedure can lead to disputes as well, and such disputes are better had on AfD where they attract more attention and through community involvement can be less personal. Also, since those categories are not shrinking in size, I don't see why many articles Rusf10 lists or tags would be improved unless there is an effort made to follow Rusf10's edits (which an community based or individual based IBAN would make difficult). I don't have a great alternative suggestion, I just wanted point out an issue I saw, a suggestion for a modification of the proposal, and why that suggestion is far from perfect.

Unwilling to give a criticism without giving a suggestion, all I think I can say is the rather obvious advice that I think that it would be better for the involved parties to work together to come up with ways to work together and avoid working together than for them to try to come up with ways to undermine each other and engender bans, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for removing such tags is very low, and I know from experience that edit warring over the tag is totally possible if people disagree. I fail to see how Rusf10 sticking "ugly tags" on alansohn's articles will help anything, if anything it will generate more friction rather than helping defuse the situation. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is normally fine as is AfD but in this case would generate more heat. The idea of adding articles by a particular user to a list is so other interested users can evaluate the suggested nominations and proceed with AfDs themselves. Many users believe the noms are productive but the other editor is calling it harassment/stalking. It allows Rusf10 to continue what may be good work, but adds a layer of independent review. It also reduces the interaction between the editors. Rusf10 might not even suggest any more pages for deletion. We don't know. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also no amount of editing can overcome basic failure of notability - so tagging a page correctly for notability is pretty useless when deletion is the solution. Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: You might want to take a look at a survey I did last week for West virginia, if Rusf10, or really anyone wanted to do similar checks it could well be worthwhile. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Normally tagging would be a great suggestion, but as Legacypac pointed out, it would not work here. The other editor would just remove the tag and get angry for the suggestion that one of "his articles" was substandard. Here's an example of what happens when I use tags: [6] [7]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, too bad. I think I remember someone once posting a link to an essay about arguing to convince the audience rather than to convince the other party (maybe it was WP:NOWIN). I found that really influential in my behavior. But other than trite suggestions and good wishes, I don't think I have any really useful advice. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Solutions

I got a message a ping to you may not have sent. I've proposed three Solutions at ANi. Please accept or decline #1 and #3. #2 does not require your comment. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete articles out of process

Your action HERE was an out of process deletion. Either nominate deletions for speedy, PROD, or at AfD if you feel deletion is merited, but do not take it upon yourself to serve as judge, jury, and executioner over other people's work at Wikipedia as that is not the way this site works. If you repeat this sort of action, I will be seeing you at AN/I with a request for a topic ban from all deletion-related activity. I am sure that I am not alone in feeling your efforts in this capacity are destructive and a net negative. Carrite (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrite Rusf10's redirect was perfectly reasonable. Redirecting non-notable topics at correct pages is very acceptable and NOT out of process at all. The mistake here was attacking the editor that made the redirect. If you take this to ANi be ready for a boomerang. I've taken the ECTV page to AfD because simply redirecting it again is not likely to stick. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not acceptable, especially with someone with such a miserable track record with PROD nominations. And I don't fear a boomerang — do you? Carrite (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is a very valid WP:ATD. If you take this to ANi, good luck. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite:This is totally uncalled for. Constantly I am told, why not use ATD? Then when I do, you come here to threaten me? Also if you are going to mass depord articles, it is very helpful to actually leave an explanation of why you think the article should not be deleted because right now it looks like you have no valid reason and are just doing so in bad faith. [8] [9] [10] [11] Care to explain? If you have a valid reason why these articles should be kept, fine. But if you are just trying to prove a point, that's not okay.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can challenge anything for deletion. Anybody can remove a PROD for any reason or no reason. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion requests. I object to each of the PRODs placed which I removed. Take them to AfD if you wish to pursue the deletion process. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: If you have to follow an editor removing their PROD's, you probably should avoid then saying they have such a miserable track record with PROD nominations.^diff It shuld be fairly obvious to you, or any other editor that has read WP:ATD-R that Rusf10 was correct in his actions, you should have taken the matter to the article talk page explaining why the article is valid after your revert.^diff Which you did not do. For future reference WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is also of relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am doing is protecting the encyclopedia from systematic deletionist vandalism. The topic ban on PROD didn't get traction last time; we'll see how it goes next time... Carrite (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What that was was an out of process deletion. Keep doing it, see what happens. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite:stop calling my editing vandalism and trying to threaten me! You still had not given any valid reason to keep the articles which proves my point about bad faith. If I had to guess, the reason why you objected to these is because I nominated them. Although its not a requirement, "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this calling normal deletion work vandalism continues Carrite will be taking a trip to ANi Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process deletions and two minute BEFORE assessments in a series of semi-automated deletions of related content is not "normal deletion work." As for AN/I, Rusf10 will soon have a frequent flyer account there, maybe he can get more miles towards a vacation in Mazatlan. Carrite (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is a notice board for collaboration and conflict resolution, not a tourist destination. If anyone here feels that an uninvolved party is needed to adjudicate on whether the bold redirection in question was correct, or whether a set of PROD's are correct, then explaining this issue on ANI would be a valid thing to do. But please stop trying to score points on who is mostly likely to be told off if that happens. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad form to comment on a proposal thst benefits you. Lets see what 3rd parties have to say. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm puzzled why you are targeting county parks. There is no benefit to anyone to have a page about a park on wikipedia but some readers will find it useful to learn the location, history etc. Can I point you at some areas where deletion will help?

State level pagant winners. These drive me crazy because a girl wins one event and does nothing else of note ever yet she gets an article
All kinds of spam in Draft space.
highly AfC declined pages here User:JJMC89 bot/report/AfC decline counts that can CSD'd for promotional G11 or G13 (remember you can ignore bot edits when counting six months).

Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:- I'm not really targeting county parks. These were part of a series of articles I proded a couple months ago. Another editor though he would just deprod them all with no explanation, so that's why they're at AfD now. Rather than bring 15 or so Overlook Park articles to AfD at once, I've been doing a few at a time. I just don't see why we need a directory of every park with a playground. I do agree that the promotional articles are more annoying.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban for user Alansohn

The Proposal at ANI to prohibit Alansohn from interacting with you for six months has passed. Note that this ban is subject to the usual exceptions, and while it is not a restriction on you you should take care not to tempt Alansohn into breaching it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rusf10. Just a reminder that with the implementation of the IBAN, the TBAN you accepted conditionally has gone into effect. The remedy you agreed to is that you are "topic banned from directly tagging for notability, proposing deletion (PROD), or nominating for AfD, any article created by Alansohn or where Alansohn is a major contributor." This arrangement will run for six months. Thank you very much for voluntarily compromising in order to eliminate drama; I think we're all hoping this will be an effective resolution. As an aside, if there is ever any doubt as to whether Alan is considered a "major contributor", I would just ask for a second opinion before taking a chance of breaching the agreement. Standard practice is that topic bans are generally broadly construed, and if you're in a grey area, it will probably be considered a violation. Ultimately, any such cases will be judged by an admin based on common sense. Thanks again, Swarm ♠ 19:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This [12] may be a violation of the interaction ban. @Thryduulf and Swarm:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good thing to post but not a violation as Rusf10 is not under a IBAN. However this might be seen as baiting and should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:, the iban doesn't apply to me! I bad enough you're bludgeoning the discussion and making self-proclaimed WP:HEY comments (as usual), but why did you bring an irrelevant article into a discussion?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly reverted the off topic chat type comment for this user's own good. Please be more careful. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the New Jersey-related AfDs arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made the report and notified him. Now step back from ANi and go do something else. This will be dealt with. Is that the first NJ AfD you've done in the last couple weeks? Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bergen_County_Executive#RFC_on_biographic_information

Hi Rusf10. Just a quick note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Bergen_County_Executive#RFC_on_biographic_information. Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please return and sign your last edit, here: [13]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RAN (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN

I think this violates it. Someone posted the matter at AN/I.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Looks like you have an unwanted traveling companion! I have had my share of it for about a year now. Best thing I can offer you: ignore it and speak with diffs in hand. And, of course, if you ever need to vent you can e-mail me; sometimes blowing off some steam does the trick.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

annoying isn't it, I bet he has my talk page on his watchlist. Anyway, thanks for the support.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ignore if possible. I missed the ANi but it closed correctly. Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries

I've almost always opposed individual articles on town libraries, but the usual way of handling them is to merge into the library system, or the town . I've changed all your recent prods accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request

Please either create a userpage with content, or at least make it a redirect to your talk page. It's annoying and a time-waster for others when a userpage does not exist but the user is active, because every single time someone links your username, e.g. in a ping template, it causes a redlink, which looks like an error, which causes us to check if it's right or not. Plus it fills up talk pages with redlinks which look like errors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I've never had an interest in creating a userpage, but since you asked nicely I redirected it as you suggested.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, It looks as though you changed the template atop Bud Otis to deletion review instead of back to the AfD. Can you fix it? I am frankly not sure how to fix it properly; the AfD is ongoing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:- Try reverting it. :)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bruce Ohr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Ohr 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/Bruce Ohr 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 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. ^Falling_Gravity 04:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Words of caution

Hello, I just wanted to throw out a caution that deleting other editors comments can result in unfavorable attention from admins. It is best to Reply or Comment directly under user comments that you have issues with or seek resolution. Just thought I would mention this. Otr500 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500:- I did no such thing. I struck a comment (not deleted, there's a difference) of a user who was banned from AfD by the community for making problematic contributions.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got you. If that is acceptable then strike away. Otr500 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: W. W. Patterson

Hello Rusf10. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of W. W. Patterson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12. Not a copyright violation. The book was published in 1888, and is therefore out of copyright and in the public domain. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland

I'm just following up on my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Fisher. I was away from any significant editing for a few days, and didn't have a chance to follow up. I looked through the prods and AfDs you submitted as best I could and !voted or edited where I felt it would be useful. I didn't find anything in the closed and deleted/redirected AfDs/prods that made me want to re-open the cases with the exception of Charles F. Weaver (which you prodded), who was a member of the state house. I didn't clean up that page more than just providing two references and a short note of his position. I'm not at all satisfied with Weaver's page, of course, but I don't plan to bring it up to a decent standard unless you think it is so bad that it should be nominated for discussion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be nominating Weaver for deletion. If he was a state senator, he passes WP:NPOL. I did not realize this when I proded the article since it was not mentioned.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I guess. I hesitate to give recommendations, but Weaver's position was not difficult to find, which somewhat reinforces my concern with the BEFORE performed before these nominations were made. That said, I don't mean any disrespect. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name flexibility

or Trump administration zero tolerance policy I support either option

People are objecting to this one about vagueness. Any thoughts on Trump administration zero-tolerance immigration policy? Or if that's too long perhaps just Trump zero-tolerance immigration policy? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScratchMarshall:Either one of your suggestions would be fine. My problem with the current names is that it implies the existence of a policy that does not actually exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Separating alleged minors from their alleged guardians is only a side effect. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation

This comment violates BLP ("he hates Trump" etc.) Please strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE

[14] Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AE report with the warning: "Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith in other editors." I understand you are probably not happy with this result, but regardless of whether you agree with it or not I encourage you to accept that there was a problem with what you did in that thread, to identify what the problem was, and then to make sure that it doesn't happen again. I also encourage you to actually read the section at WP:BATTLEGROUND and make sure you understand what it means so you can avoid those behaviors, because if you continue without changing anything you will quickly find yourself with a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey hardcore

Hi, saw this, just today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Jersey_hardcore In a quick search found two articles mentioning New Jersey hardcore as its own separate thing. Just like what it said they were looking for 1.https://www.nj.com/entertainment/music/index.ssf/2015/01/blood_bruises_brotherhood_the_state_of_new_jersey_hardcore.html

2.https://www.theaquarian.com/2014/04/16/shoreworld-hot-blood-no-kings/

help fix this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.54.236 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!


	There's nothing like an ice cold beer after a long day at the pedia. Have a cold one, on me! – Lionel^(talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS violation

This is a violation of discretionary sanctions, both because you are restoring text which has been challenged and because you are removing text whose removal has been challenged. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is no justification for your POV removal of properly-sourced and on-topic content. This seems to be a recurring pattern and you need to stop it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Awilley, as he has already warned you above for just this type of behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I restored the fox news information. YOU will have to gain consensus on the talk page for the removal of the other long standing sourced information. I'm challenging YOUR edit.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toys "R" Us

Thanks for messaging me about TRU. However, please be careful not to clutter the article next time. Quetstar (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bruce Ohr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce Ohr 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/Bruce Ohr (2nd nomination) 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Your edit just now violates the 1RR - you have twice reverted edits to the article in 24 hours. Use of the word "claim" is appropriate for a highly-partisan and disputed document, some of which has been proven false. I request that you self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Claim is not appropriate as per WP:CLAIM, the statement is already attributed properly. 2. You already violated the 3RR rule today [15] [16] [17] [18] which says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". --Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Rusf10 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rusf10. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schumer Shutdown listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Schumer Shutdown. Since you had some involvement with the Schumer Shutdown redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Request

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 - Mr X 🖋 10:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As expected

Regardless of the tendentious editing history of the person you filed a valid report on, the outcome was already known beforehand and reaffirmed by the usual highly partisan admins that chimed in. Nothing short of a plausible death threat or obvious insanity will ever get them to eat one of their own.--MONGO (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO:What can I tell you? The usual suspects showed up and handed him the liberal "get out of jail free card". No article about American politics on wikipedia is even remotely neutral because of this rigged system.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that is the case!--MONGO (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

half the "spin-offs" from those articles are POV coat racks full of synthesis and the detritus of TDS loons who are still crying to the sky that their crime boss Hillary lost.--MONGO (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point, we don't have an article on any other person anywhere (not just politicians) lying. And don't get me started on the racial views article. They basically just synth together a bunch of opinion pieces written on far-left websites like Vox (am I allowed to say that or will that get me in trouble?) and then tell us "well, that's what reliable sources say". Meanwhile 90% of conservative websites are banned. You either need to ban all opinion pieces as sources (might not be a bad idea) or ban none of them, not just select the ones you agree with.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news media never likes conservatives. Their training is in the liberal arts, so they report along those lines. So long as they are deemed as reliable sources (CNN is littered daily with venom and hate in their headlines and the wording of their garbage articles and this applies to the website and their "news" channel) we are forced to use them. This is not altogether different than the situation I was dealing with when the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who routinely used Modus ponens and Affirming the consequent as a form of argument. Trump has made X number of lies, therefore he never says anything that is not a lie. This gets further twisted to the format that a lie has been told so it must have been Trump who told it.--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, please don't egg him on. BullRangifer got off with a warning because he was quick to retract the personal attack. If the same standards were applied to you that you apparently want applied to BullRangifer you would probably be topic banned yourself. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe and maybe not. Hugs and kisses!--MONGO (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Dickory ridiculous edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hickory Dickory Dock; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Bernadette P. McPherson

Hello Rusf10. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bernadette P. McPherson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:, I disagree, especially if you look at the earlier revisions of the article, its a "copy and paste", but have taken the article to AFD for other reasons.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another brief look and it doesn't go back to the very first revision, so that's where we just use revdel instead of deleting the whole article. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are subject to the sanction listed at User:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#Auto-boomerang_sanction for a period of 1 year.

You have been sanctioned for continuing to engage in WP:Battleground behavior and WP:ABF despite the warning here. This is motivated in part by the hounding nature of, and battleground behavior exhibited at your third AE enforcement request in a year against User:Bullrangifer as well as some of the diffs that surfaced there (see section of User:Aquillion).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider a blanket reversal of these restrictions on both editors. This is a contentious topic. We are working through it on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC) Please consider a blanket reversal of these restrictions on both editors. This is a contentious topic. We are working through it on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I want to make sure we're on the same page here. I reported BullRangifer to AE three times. The first two times, he was let off with a warning because sympathetic admins don't want to sanction him. Obviously those were not frivolous reports since he would not have been warned if they were. And now for the third report, it appears that you yourself, gave him a warning [19], so this does not appear frivolous either? Even if he was only let off with a warning,so now you're putting me under a sanction to discourage me form reporting bad behavior even though that behavior clearly did exist? As per WP:ADMINACCT, I also would like to know specifically which of Aquillions you believe violated a policy and specifically which policy was violated.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated above the relevant policies/guidelines are WP:Assume good faith and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. These diffs from the Aquillion section are relevant [20] [21] but the main purpose of this sanction is to discourage you from trying to weaponize administrative noticeboards against ideological opponents. And yes, the report was frivolous...I'm the only admin who supported taking any action, and it wasn't because your accusations against Bullrangifer were convincing (they weren't for the most part). ~Awilley (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley:You can't talk out of both side of your mouth. Either the report was frivolous or it was not. If it was frivolous, you would not be taking any action (And the other admins opinion are irrelevant here. I'm asking you.) Need I remind you that the diff you referenced [22] in your notice to BullRangifer is one that I presented? As for the two diffs you provided against me, 1. [23] muddying the water is far from a personal attack. I was just stating at the time the concern brought by the other user appeared to be irrelevant since it was not clear form the link he provided that people were being canvassed to the RFC. Additional evidence provided after that made it more clear that meatpuppetry may be a issue, but it was not clear at that time. 2. [24] This was in response to BullRangifer's comment that Roger Ailes "deliberately chose to side with the criminals" [25]. Surely you don't think it was okay for him to write that?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"muddying the water is far from a personal attack" That's an odd thing to say for someone who accuses others of making straw man arguments. [26] I don't believe I said it was a personal attack. As for whether the report was frivolous or not, I saw it as being mildly frivolous, in bad faith, and in violation of your warning about BATTLEGROUND behavior. ~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion the filing was "mildly frivolous", yet you decided to take action on something from the filing. Do you see why I am having trouble making sense of this? When something is truly frivolous, the result should be no action, none, not at all! Since you're now bringing up another diff, let me provide the background on that. I was questioning why Volunteer Marek added a sentence to the lead about Michael Cohen's allegation that Donald Trump had advanced knowledge about the wikileak's email leak sine it was clearly WP:UNDUE. His response was "Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source". That's clearly a straw man because it is not the issue that I brought up. Neither I nor the other editor that commented before him argued that Cohen did not say that. He obviously did, the issue was whether it belonged in the lead. And while we're on the subject of Volunteer Marek, do you intend to put him under the same restriction as me? If there is one editor that goes to file AE requests more than any other, it is him. And you can clearly see from his comments at the most recent AE requests, his behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND and he makes allegations without providing the appropriate diffs. Why does he get a pass all the time?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order: Yes that's correct. No I can't say I do. I don't see why that must be. I think you missed the point about straw man (It wasn't a criticism of the diff). No I don't intend to sanction Volunteer Marek without evidence, as you have provided none, which is a problem that I'm choosing to ignore for now because I understand you're frustrated at the moment. ~Awilley (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley:What is your point? And you still didn't answer my other question. Do you find it acceptable that BullRangifer said Roger Ailes "deliberately chose to side with the criminals"? And what proof do you need about Volunteer Marek? Look at his comments at the open AE request. His character assassination of Phmoreno was without diffs as I pointed out. He still hasn't provided all the diffs. He alleged that Phmoreno prodided links to specific sources, but still has not provided proof. Now you may consider this a moot point since he got indeffed, but to me it matters, do something when it comes to one person, but look the other way with another. Nor does anyone seem to care about his edit summary here If that isn't WP:BATTLEGOUND then I don't know what is. He gets a pass all the time, you know it, but do not care.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The straw man point isn't important enough to warrant further explanation. No I don't like what BR said about Roger Ailes, I think it's unhelpful "spin" to say that he "sided with criminals". I figure most people will "side" with someone who is technically a "criminal" at some point in their life. Are people advocating for prison reform also "siding with criminals"? You said above that VM files more AE requests than any other editor, so evidence for that claim would be links to recent frivolous AE requests filed by VM. Anyway I think I've answered all your questions now related to ADMINACT. ~Awilley (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is being said here is your reports to AE are unwelcome and your comments there otherwise will likely be ignored Rusf10. I should have thrown you some diffs of the numerous times BullRangifer has questioned my competence, insinuated I peddle conspiracy theories and questioned my ability to edit neutrally.--MONGO (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notice how the sanction imposed on you has tangible consequences. AE decisions aren't consistent so any request however sound might be dismissed. Here are two recent 1RR violations dismissed because the editor reverted AFTER the request was filed [27] [28] If you brought these clear violations to AE with new your restriction you'd be blocked. Effectively you're banned from bringing anything to AE (at least if you know what's good for you.)

Now compare that to Bullranger's restriction [29]. If he makes personal comments AND if he's asked to strike them AND if he refuses THEN he'll be blocked. So he's free to make as many personal comments as he likes as long as he strikes them when requested (which civil editors normally do even without special restrictions.)

So Bull's "sanction" after two warnings is hardly a sanction at all and yours for your first is material. Like Astme said at AE in a recent comment this sanctions regime is a joke, bureaucratic cover to tilt the field. Anyone can look at the state of our articles and political leanings of editors topic banned to confirm it. Sangdebouf, Snoogans and Solbanga to name a few wouldn't last a week if they weren't liberal partisans. The standard procedures to solve have been tried for years and it's only gotten worse. Any correction must to come from outside and with nonstandard procedures (a good analogy would be insurgency tactics which have had some positive results.) Your problem if I'm blunt is you're contesting this rationally and honestly and honesty only beats dishonesty in fairy tales. In the real world you learn to use dishonesty strategically or you lose. 185.51.8.40 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not controversial to say that perceived right wing editors receive sanctions at AE far more often than perceived left wing editors, and that the perceived right wing editors receive far more boomerangs for "frivolous" filings than the perceived left wing editors. Now to be fair, that is assuming that both "sides" misbehave equally and misreport each other equally, which may not be true. However, one of those perceived left wing editors outed me a little while ago but that was quietly overlooked, even after reporting it to Arbcom. Unfortunately that's just the way it is, and if you simply accept it then editing here is a bit easier. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. You have a right to ask for an accounting from an administrator and we expect sanctioned users to blow off steam to some degree, but there are limits. I can't be bothered logging something this trivial as an enforcement action, but my firm advice to you is to get on with productive editing. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What's really ridiculous though is they don't even PRETEND to be objective. Bull hasn't even bothered to submit a statement in his own defense. Why not? He knows exactly how it was going to go. Bull has the correct worldview. Rusf doesn't. Bull simply kicked back and copy-pasted CNN articles into every Wikipedia article he could find while the admins slowly showed up and did his work for him. It's almost all wrapped up now. Bishonen has showed up to fully exonerate Bull from his misdeeds, and as she does in every single other one of these instances (person with incorrect worldview reports someone with the correct worldview for their infractions), she "suggests" (orders) a boomerang for the user with the incorrect worldview. Again, Bull knows the drill and that's why he never bothered to submit a statement in his report. Why would he? He's got better things to do, like smear Trump and pretend like the Mueller report found collusion and pretend like the dossier is a very important piece of objective journalism that wasn't bought from the Kremlin by the DNC. What the hell is Rusf going to do about it? Tell Jimbo that Bishonen needs to be sysopped? Report Awilley for his blatant bias? Please. The fact that only liberals are permitted to become admins and only liberals are permitted to edit in politics and only news articles written by liberals are allowed isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. 2600:1012:B026:364E:187B:95BB:973:C19D (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously edited Wikipedia under any other account? Just curious. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take long before you realize how the machine operates with respect to political articles. It may take a little longer to learn everybody's names and how the workflow operates.

Mr. X/Objective3000/Snoogansnoogans/Scjessey/Volunteer Marek/Neutrality/SPECIFICO/MelanieN/Bullrangifer/NorthBySouthBaranof/My very best wishes et. al. sees something that CNN and Chuck Schumer wouldn't approve of or someone doing something that doesn't promote liberalism.
One or more of them shoots off an email to Bishonen/Drmies/EdJohnston/Black Kite/TonyBallioni/MastCell/Awilley et. al. (provided they don't see the unapproved thought themselves first) to call their attention to the "problematic behavior."
One or more of them log in to Wikipedia to "take care of it"/"protect the project" using key phrases like "Given the history of disruption, I feel an indefinite block is appropriate....." or "However, I find <holder of unapproved thought>'s behavior problematic as well and I wouldn't be opposed to a boomerang..." to provide cover.

This is what Jimbo intended by cementing a culture of liberalism and groupthink and only accepting left-wing media as "reliable" sources. The "reliable" liberal sources have botched dozens of stories since January 2017, but yet, conservative sources like The Daily Caller that broke numerous stories and is a part of the Poynter fact-checking network have been "deprecated." Also, the individuals with the correct worldview regularly try to get Fox News banned, which is the only major media organization that didn't push the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election. Conservatives like Stephen Miller are regularly smeared and attacked as "far-right" in their biographies, while radical leftist extremists are NEVER described as "far-left." So to answer your question, yes, I have experience with the way things operate here, and yes, I have forfeited my editing privileges for calling attention to the workflow. Bullrangifer is calling Donald Trump a "spider" in a web, who sends out his "spiders" to go do his evil bidding for him. The admins yawn and continue to argue that Stefan Halper wasn’t a spy - he was merely a covert operative sent in by the government to gather intel on American citizens and report back with his findings. Think otherwise? Here, have a topic ban. I'm surprised Drmies hasn't gotten involved yet to help pile on Rusf10 and eliminate the antigen known as "other opinions" from Wikipedia. 2600:1012:B021:4650:B955:FB91:1DF3:9A1 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So en-wiki is a snake pit controlled by corrupt liberals at all levels. Never heard that one before. I note you've now been temp-blocked for block evasion, further evidence of that conspiracy. You'll have to hide behind a different IP address. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 23 April 2019

You've been editing politics for years, Mandruss. You're really going to sit there and argue, with a straight face, that admins and politics editors are not almost universally liberal and do not work together to get rid of dissenting views? Since Wikipedia's politics articles are esentially rehashings of liberal websites like CNN and the Washington Post, Trump brought out the same elements in Wikipedia that it brought out in the media organizations that hover right around 90% negative coverage of Trump and getting story after story after story horribly wrong with no apology. Much like the media, Wikipedia's power structure is divided into two main categories: the liberals who don't think they're liberals, but rather "correct" and "intelligent," whereas those with whom they disagree are not. They are hard-working, objective, and non-partisan. Just like CNN, and just like the Washington Post. Fair and balanced. Then you have the other category, which admits they are not objective or interested in the truth, but Trump/Republicans are just so uniquely awful that it's acceptable to smear and besmirch their reputations at all costs because that's just what these times call for. Again, BullRangifer is attacking Trump as "a spider in the center of the web, whose spiders do nothing without his orders, or at least his approval" with no repercussions. Rusf10 calmly points out repeated, egregious violations of Wikipedia policy and flaunting of basic decency, and Bishonen hurries in not to sanction Bull for his BLP violations and personal attacks, but to order a boomerang for Rusf10. But sure, you've "never heard" that admins are corrupt or liberal. Yes, you're right. The IP mentioned Awilley above, someone told him about it (or he saw it himself), so he blocked the IP as retribution. Meanwhile, RexxS continues to sock with impunity and under the direction of Bishonen. Of course it has nothing to do with the fact that he has the correct worldview. Just as you said. Similarly, Volunteer Marek was improperly sanctioned by Sandstein after dozens and dozens of edit warring and no-brainer AE filings, but was rescued by Bishonen, Drmies, Black Kite, et. al . because Marek was treated unfairly. It has nothing to do with the fact that he has the correct worldview and perpetuates it daily all over the encyclopedia. Totally unrelated. Think otherwise? You're a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and must have been directed here by InfoWars. 2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. A subset of editors who see things the same way are not necessarily "working together to get rid of dissenting views". I'm not claiming that that sort of thing never occurs in the world, only that you are making a wild and reckless assumption without evidence. It's at least equally possible that they simply see things the same way, and that's different from how you see things. This is the whole point of WP:AGF, which too many editors completely fail to get. 2. CNN and WaPo both have green check marks in the second column at WP:RSP, and you are free to challenge that check mark at WP:RSN. That's the way it works here, and we all can work within the system or find a different one more to our liking. What you're doing is bomb-throwing, doing your best to disrupt the system because it fails to produce the results you want. That kind of behavior will never get any sympathy from me, at Wikipedia or anywhere else. 3. I'm always unimpressed by editors who avoid the accountability of a history, particularly if they are railing against the system. You want my respect? Register an account and build a history, or log in and own your comments like a man if you already have an account. 4. I happen to feel that Awilley is as ethical as any human administrator could be, and nothing I've seen in this episode has changed my mind. So add me to your list of corrupt editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mandruss, sorry for the text wall Rusf.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Agreed, although that's not what I said. The fact that the most prolific, unsanctionable, admin-protected editors and admins have near-identical political views does not necessarily mean that they are working together to rid the project of dissenting views. The fact that they are working together means that they are working together. If you pay close attention, you will notice that they switch off responsibility and take turns pulling the trigger, e.g. Drmies and Bishonen will alternate the role of arriving late to an AE report if it doesn't seem the correct outcome will be reached for the editor with the dissenting view, and order (either explicitly or implicitly) that a boomerang be issued for the reporting editor with the incorrect worldview (Rusf10). Sometimes, an editor such as Mr. X will encounter some resistance to smearing a Republican/Trump with some outlandish statement like "We need to call Trump a liar in his lede, because WP:SPADE," and handle the problem by either pinging a sympathetic admin like Muboshgu to snuff out the dissent or run to the AE board, where he will soon be joined by an assortment of the editors I listed above to go through the obligatory pre-ban/block "Yes, I agree that this behavior is problematic and I am concerned that he is not able to edit in this area..." routine. I AGF'd until I sorted out the workflow of this process and saw this for the first time.

2. Not trying to get sympathy. I was expressing support for Rusf10 and you came here to side with the Bishonen/Sandstein/Muboshgu et. al. crew and throw out the usual "Oh yeah, it's a WP:Cabal!" and "We're fair and balanced, here!" glib platitudes. How do you think that would go if I created an account and laid out why WaPo and NYT aren't reliable at RSN? What's more likely?: a) I get bombarded with attacks from the NorthBySouth posse and promptly TBAN'd/indef'd for CIR/WP:DISRUPT/take your pick violations OR b) The neutral admins take a serious look at the over 100 severely botched anti-Trump stories that were never retracted, and the Washington Post is deprecated for unreliability? Gosh I can't imagine which scenario would ensue. What if I point out that they've been pushing conspiracy theories about Michael Cohen's visits to Prague, hookers urinating on beds, and the president ordering Flynn to contact the Russkies? Surely then CNN would be deprecated, no? Come on. How many fake non-retracted stories would it take you, Mandruss, personally, to acknowledge that the New York Times isn't trustworthy? What's the number? 20 over the past two years? 40? See, this is what pisses people off. It's not the crammed-down-your-throat liberalism that bothers people about the media. MSNBC gets great ratings because that's where you go if you want to hear people scream about Trump all day, every day. They're honest about it, and that's their brand. Nobody watches CNN because they still pretend to be delivering the news to people, when in reality they're trying to occupy the same niche as MSNBC. Their desired brand is incongruent with their product. Same thing on Wikipedia. All the political articles are essentially op eds ripped from the headlines of the Washington Post and the New York Times. What a surprise that the most rabid anti-Trump media corporations are viewed as the "gold standard" (lmao) of "reliable sources"! Wikipedia portrays itself as "neutral" and "objective," when in reality it's anything but. If Wikipedia simply acknowledged that this is where you go to for liberal ideology, there wouldn't be this problem of having to block and ban people all the time whenever a Winston Smith starts asking questions.

3. I had the accountability and paid for not having the correct worldview, a fact I'm sure you know and are just being coy about. I don't care if you respect me as a person or not. As long as you see yourself as virtuous, while those with whom you disagree are fallen, that's all that matters. You can call me any name you want. If I could provide you with the email chains between the admins and their designated worker bees, I would gladly oblige.

4. I don't think you're corrupt. I think you truly believe that CNN only wants people to have the truth, Don Lemon has no dog in the hunt, and it's just an amazing coincidence that The New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower. It doesn't really matter since this isn't about you specifically, but it seems you're in the first category I laid out: a liberal who doesn't consider themselves a liberal, and believes that everyone around them who is honest, moral, and intelligent agrees with them, and those who do not are nothing more than far-right conspiracy theorists on the fringes of society and on the wrong side of history, likely spending lots of time on InfoWars and Stormfront. Which is fine. I'm very familiar with Awilley's editing and enforcement history, and in my opinion it speaks for itself. 2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Rusf10 that something like this would happen. As I see it, Awilley was quite lenient in letting them off with what was effectively just a formal warning. Rusf10 is lucky they didn't get blocked. R2 (bleep) 23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not helpful. You can read above about why the report was not frivolous as I will not repeat myself. The only person Slick Willey was lenient with was BullRangifer. The sanction given to him is a complete joke. Apparently every time someone calls BullRangifer out for violating a policy, he can just strike it out and then we can pretend like it never even happened. [30]--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking no position on whether your complaint was frivolous or not, but perhaps equally importantly is that not all non-frivolous complaints are necessary. Discretion is the better part of valor. I hope you'll come to understand that. R2 (bleep) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time to archive this thread or even the whole talkpage and start fresh?--MONGO (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10...can I hat this section. Either that or close it yourself. This is a hill not worth dying for.--MONGO (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Rusf 10, I don't know if you noticed or not but R2 went crying to Awilley's talk page to tattle on me for supposed "disruption" and "block evasion". If you determine that I'm disrupting your talk page, feel free to delete my comments and I will not make any further remarks. It seems he is trying to somehow leverage any support for you into wrongdoing on your part, trying to make the case for punishing you further for pointing out Bull's repeated BLP violations. MONGO has survived by showing deference to liberalism and the admins who enforce it, but in my opinion this kind of self-castration isn’t worth it. I would recommend just giving up Wikipedia altogether or avoiding political articles. Balance isn’t what they do here. A former Jezebel bigwig joined the Wikimedia board last year. Says it all, really.2600:1012:B01D:91EA:6021:FCD7:B451:38AA (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10/Response to Allegations

Uh, were you supposed to write this in mainspace? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R2 (bleep) 21:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying for a banned editor

Your actions here and here amount to proxying for a banned editor (in this case, User:Hidden Tempo). Restoring or un-hatting this kind of belligerent, unconstructive hyper-partisan nonsense from a banned editor is disruptive, particularly in the context of your overall behavior. Yes, you're going to argue about whether the most recent IP whom you enabled was actually Hidden Tempo. Since I don't have the patience for bad-faith pettifogging, let's be clear that even if the IP were just a random drive-by, your restoration of valueless partisan attacks is a continuation of the battleground behavior for which you have repeatedly been warned (and for which you just recently narrowly avoided sanction). Please don't continue proxying for banned editors in this manner, as it's disruptive. MastCell ^Talk 03:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: What the hell are you bothering me for? I didn't restore anything .I did not proxy for anyone, so stop the baseless allegations. I unhatted a discussion that was on-going and involved multiple editors, the vast majority of which were having a good faith discussion. You don't just hat a lengthy discussion because part of it is going off the rails. Are you going to condemn the user who hatted the entire discussion which had multiple unrelated parts? If the discussion was primarily just the comments of the allegedly banned user, I'd see the point, but we were having a legit discussion about a new york times article. I mean you come out of left-field to post this on my talk page? So who summoned you here? Or are you just stalking me? And if you really cared about the issue, you'd actually go back and completely redact the comments the IP made on the article talk page. From my past interactions with you, I find you yourself to be a highly partisan administrator who doesn't even have a semblance of impartiality. Please be advised, you are hereby banned from posting on my talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the diffs MastCell gave clearly show you restoring hatted content. Second, this edit which you reverted in the diff above was not hatting "a lengthy discussion because part of it is going off the rails", it was hatting a small part of that discussion that had clearly gone off the rails, and which was primarily the work of the banned user. MastCell's warning was reasonable especially given your previous warnings from multiple admins about Battleground behavior and my warning to you about enabling sock/meat puppets. Your attacks on MastCell are inappropriate and I recommend that you retract them. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley:I am not going to argue with you. I see now that the second removal of the hat was different than the first one (something I did not realize at the time), but that doesn't change the fact that this specific hatting was inappropriate. As for MastCell, his edit history shows he only takes certain types of administrative actions and only against persons who express certain views that are presumably in conflict with his own. Even you are not that one-sided.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken but I believe that admins aren't required to be neutral in the way you describe? R2 (bleep) 20:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

..."his edit history shows he only takes certain types of administrative actions and only against persons who express..." So instead of retracting the attacks you're taking this at face value and adding new ones. At what point are you going to recognize that User:Hidden Tempo isn't a good ally and is leading you down a path that puts you at odds with our encyclopedic mission? ~Awilley (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that edit until now. I was speaking from my previous encounters with MastCell and looking at his editing history myself. Also, I do not know Hidden Tempo, so I would appreciate if you do not call him my "ally".--Rusf10 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A torte

We may have disagreements, however I think you deserve a torte

A Dobos torte for you!

Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

@Lubbad85:I appreciate your civility in the matter. I've never had a Dobos Torte before, but it looks good. Thank you!--Rusf10 (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Darling AOC

You don't seem to have a handle on the policy for editing the article about AOC, so here is my understanding: 1) Anything AOC says, no matter how ridiculous, ill-informed, or offensive, can be included, because she is AOC. 2) Any statement in support of AOC is of course allowed. 3) Any statement critical of her or her policies or positions is not allowed unless a) it specifically mentions her by name (not just refuting statements she made or positions she took), and b) was widely reported in liberal media. 4) Any edit which includes a cite to Fox News will we immediately reverted, despite Wikipedia listing Fox News as a reliable source. 5) If you take issue with the policy, some editor will cite a Wikipedia rule that has little if any relevance. I hope this clarifies things for you. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 AFD repeat

I am contacting everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 to tell you the same discussion is happening again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Dream Focus 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Greetings, Rusf10. Alansohn, who, AFAIK has been diligently abiding by his IBAN for far longer than the expected six months, has contacted me with concerns that you are stalking him. I do see you returned from a break of editing to immediately nominate two of his creations for deletion, plus Elizabeth Shin, a barely-edited article you showed up to nominate for deletion immediately after Alan expanded it. I find it unlikely that this is all a coincidence and that you were not going through Alan's contribs, and while I'm not saying your intent was to harass, stalking an editor who's IBANNED from you and nominating their pages for deletion is fairly likely to be interpreted as either harassing or baiting behavior. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm:As he has done frequently in the past, Alansohn is making false allegations again. Despite not being under an IBAN, I have attempted to not directly engage him in any way. I have not taken any break from editing either. I have just been editing less frequently than in the past. It is absurd that he would accuse me of stalking him over the Elizabeth Shin article. I just reviewed the editing history of the article now and see that his only edit in the 15 years that the article existed was to add a single sentence. Its just a bad article, it has absolutely nothing to do with him since he's barely edited it. As for the New Jersey government templates, there are many reasons to delete these, they fill NJ municipal articles with bloat and are far from the norm for city articles on wikipedia. The community has not taken up this issue for years and I think its time to bring the New Jersey articles in line with the articles from all other states. The core of the issue is that Alansohn believes he has WP:OWNERSHIP of all New Jersey articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated three consecutive nominations for deletion for pages that Alan had either created or recently contributed to. The encyclopedic merits of your nominations aside, it is not really believable that it was a coincidence, particularly when you link at the history of Elizabeth Shin. I can't read minds, so I can't determine who's in the right, but you're well aware that this exact thing is part of a long-running issue between you two, to the extent that you accepted a TBAN from this specific thing. And that's the thing—you're not banned from this any more. And we can't know that your intent is to harass. But it can be reasonably construed as baiting. Surely you can understand that. As a neutral party, I think it's a pretty reasonable reaction, given the context, the timing, and the history. It would seem like the exact sort of thing I cautioned you against doing. One deletion nom isn't going to create an issue, but this looks like a "drive by". Not saying it was intended as such, just that that's how it looks. It's not some wild, unhinged allegation like you're saying it is. While you're not under sanctions, I'm sure you agree that we do not need the conflict to re-erupt because of unlikely "coincidental" interactions that may or may not be intentional, depending on who you choose to believe. "I'm not under sanctions" will not exactly be a great look if it re-erupts at a community noticeboard, you know? I'm not out here to give you a hard time because I'm somehow invested in this conflict. I'm purely here because I closed the discussion, which means that Alan is coming to me with his complaints. So I can pass it along that it seems like you're maybe pestering Alan in some way, and that it would be in everyone's best interest if you were more careful about not doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter whether you have good excuses for the interactions or not. If the complaints keep coming over debatable interactions that Alan thinks are meant to bait him, we're going to end up with yet another protracted thread at AN/I about it and relitigate the existing sanctions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTSfever Television Network moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, SPORTSfever Television Network, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

You removed consensus wording that was established after several lengthy and broadly participated talk page threads. Please undo your recent edit to the text concerning the investigation and impeachment and share your views on talk to seek consensus for any text you feel is more appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:There was hardly any discussion on that wording, not a consensus. Please discuss on talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It goes back literally months. You'd best review the talk archives before you're so quick to revert next time. Saves everyone time and trouble and helps you gain credibility. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{YO|SPECIFICO}}You are wrong, the wording does not go back months, it was put in about a week ago, please review the page history.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge AfD?

Hi Rusf10, I hope you're having a splendid holiday weekend. I thought you should know that this looks an awful lot like a reaction to this. That's not a good look. - Mr X 🖋 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:I routinely nominate poor articles for deletion. You accusation of bad faith is uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So you were new page patrolling? No, that can't be because I'm auto-patrolled so you would not have seen it in the queue. Given that the article has ample sources; its subject is notable; it's grammatical; it's properly formatted; and it had no maintenance tags, I'm incredulous that out of 6,824,863 articles you just happened to find this "poor" article right after I reverted you edit.

My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself. - Mr X 🖋 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I sympathize with that sentiment. When an article, including a stub, passes the criteria for a new article, an AfD is seen as a bad faith action. Alternatively, it can also be seen as a competency issue. Which is worse? Either one is bad, and the combination even worse. It's generally best to leave it alone and wait, especially if one has a COI of the negative kind. Don't be seen as a censor of that which you don't like. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False edit summary against consensus

You removed the word "found" at Donald Trump claiming that you were implementing talk page consensus. Nobody would read the talk page, with many editors of all stripes advocating for "found", and believe that your edit or summary was appropriate. This is disruptive and it's concerning that you appear to have done similar things repeatedly in recent edits. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:It's actually the opposite. Editors of all stripes are against using "found" (the word from the Democrats' partisan report and the quote from Adam Schiff). Only you, Mr. X, and one other person are insistent on using such misleading wording. A partisan report is not a statement of fact.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist) 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/Glenn Schwartz (meteorologist) 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. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 713: / Line 713: @@
 :::My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
+:::: [[user:MrX|MrX]], I sympathize with that sentiment. When an article, including a stub, passes the criteria for a new article, an AfD is seen as a bad faith action. Alternatively, it can also be seen as a [[WP:Competence|competency]] issue. [[Rhetorical question|Which is worse?]] Either one is bad, and the combination even worse. It's generally best to leave it alone and wait, especially if one has a COI of the negative kind. Don't be seen as a censor of that which you don't like. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 == False edit summary against consensus ==