User talk:Rusf10

rte

☎)(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.

@

Rusf10 (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

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]

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

@

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

]

An article you recently created,

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]

@

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

]

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. - MrX 🖋 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

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 6,818,413 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. - MrX 🖋 00:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wow. I have this page watchlisted in case any one wonders about my comment here or elsewhere and have to say the threats, bullying and bad faith accusations and the questioning of an editors competency are all violations of numerous polices and arbcom decisions.--MONGO (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to Arbcom, or just mind your own business MONGO. - MrX 🖋

Boo Hoo mongo. Those policies all need you to be more specific if you disparage another editor. As you did MrX. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I would not bother responding to this group. It's obvious they are just trying to provoke you.--MONGO (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt much will happen at AN/I as ElC suggested it probably needs to be brought up at AE where the person you are complaining about has been previously warned not once but twice. It may get an unwelcome reception or little response what with the holidays upon many of us and seen as uncharitable. Or keep all this in your hip pocket for the next episode since this is a repeat issue.--MONGO (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Its all in the diffs Rusf10. If the diffs show what you claim (and I think they do) and the report to AN/I gained no traction then AE is the only other place it can go for now. Unless you want to file a full blown case at arbcom and that will be a slugfest, trust me. At AE they may sanction and they may blow it off but the AN/I thing is done and it won't be forum shopping since ElC said it belongs at AE. Or you could ask Awilley to examine the evidence but I prefer a plurality of admins on this matter. That editor once also said I had a competency issue...that and other things long overdue to be addressed are going to be real soon. But for now...its eggnog time.--MONGO (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rusf10. My advice that you take this to AE was wrong apparently but I was going by an earlier comment by El C that the complaint belonged at AE. Foolishly, I anticipated some justice might be had, alas, tis not to be so and I am a fool for thinking such a forum would be anything other than what it has always been. My apologies.--MONGO (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Questioning the competency of others is worse than a personal attack in my opinion.--MONGO (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Don't pin this on bad advice from El_C. Yes, he said that AE was the correct venue, but he definitely didn't advise you to take it there. He said, "Rusf10 is free to relist this as an AE request, but I don't know if it is going to amount to much." and that was after saying he didn't find the content in question to be a personal attack.

2. BullRangifer didn't interpret...that's literally what the sanction says. Article Talk pages. But no, he can't personally attack anyone anywhere else, because

WP:NPA

applies everywhere.

3. If you really want an apology you could try asking for one. Or a retraction/strike. (That's what BR is supposed to do when he slips up on talk pages, and there's a good chance he'll do it here too.) But in my experience the best thing to do with personal attacks is to ignore them. They just make the attacker look bad. (See also meatball:DefendEachOther) ~Awilley (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Awilley, no idea why we have NPA policies or expectations that editors are to refrain against commenting on other editors motivations, biases or mental capabilities of they aren't enforced. The occasional slip up is to be ignored yes but a constant barrage with multiple examples that are done even after being warned? There is no doubt in my mind that if I was reported with the diffs offered I'd be TB immediately. Instead we see the reporter being vilified for ah, reporting infractions and then being told to ignore those infractions.--MONGO (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. That's why I feel like this whole thing is a setup.--

Rusf10 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2. El C is an experienced administrator who made the right call. My comment was a criticism, not a personal attack. Not all unpleasant things that are said are personal attacks. They're just uncomfortable criticisms. If I had resorted to name calling, now that would be a personal attack. Civil criticisms should not be interpreted as anything other than that. They are not personal attacks. The civil expression of differences of opinion should not be punished.

3. To make sure there is no misunderstanding of what I meant, I consider it a bad idea to ignore the notability rules for article creation and start an AfD. If an article is based on RS, give it a chance. Wait a while. If it was created on a deceptive or false basis, or it lacks RS to document notability, then, after a few days, try an AfD.

4. Awilley is absolutely correct that NPA applies everywhere, especially on article talk pages. Differences of opinion and criticisms that are directed at editors should be dealt with elsewhere, such as on personal talk pages. In that regard, Awilley did not unfairly intend for me to live by a different or higher standard than every other editor, although that has been the effect of the sanction I live under. So be it. Many other editors regularly engage in very hard criticisms, swearing, name calling, ad hominem attacks, etc, without anything happening to them, and they do it in front of many admins, including Awilley. I just have to accept that they are judged by a different standard. Even before and without the sanction, I do not engage in such behaviors, so my "infractions" have been rare and mild compared to what other editors are regularly allowed to do all the time. Where things can get really dicey are drama boards, which are designed for especially nasty things to be said, and, if backed by good diffs, they are not considered personal attacks. It takes thick skin to survive around here.

5. Drama boards should be used as a last resort. The process is inherently disruptive. Conflict resolution should start on article talk pages, then personal talk pages, and then, if no mutual understanding or apologies are reached, bring others into the picture. One does not have to be a Christian to see the wisdom of Christ's advice:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matthew 18:15-17 (ESV)

If, after all that, a resolution cannot be achieved, only then should one go to AN/I, AE, etc. Those are nuclear options and very disruptive. They often create more heat than light.

That's why, in all the years I've been here (16 years), I have rarely used those measures, and never without having solid backing among a group of involved editors who agree on the nature of the problem. I'm not about to start a procedure where I'll end up standing alone looking like a fool. I don't trust my judgment that much, but if other editors have also been involved in trying to solve the same problem, then together we can accomplish something at a drama board.

We should seek to de-escalate, rather than escalate, problems. We should not try to get other editors into trouble. We should try to save them and maintain a collegial atmosphere. Seeking to escalate problems is battlefield behavior. It shows ill intent, a violation of AGF. By contrast, those who seek peaceful solutions are not engaged in battlefield behavior.

Only if an editor is recalcitrant and repeatedly refuses to collaborate or follow policy should we go to extreme measures, and then only to protect the project and defend our policies. We all make mistakes, and we should not be punished for occasional missteps. "Judge not lest you be judged by the same measure with which you judge." --

That...ranks up there with one of the best non apologies I have read yet on this website. Ahem...you even questioned his competency twice in opening monologue over at AE. Above you call him disruptive for seeking an end to your attacks. Amazing.--MONGO (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk

)

Have you noticed that both of you keep using the word "attack" many times above, even though others have told you it wasn't an attack? Even after they have told you, you keep repeating it. Just think about it. Your perceptions need to be tweaked, and no one else can do it for you. You can decide to remain angry or not. It takes a conscious decision to see things in a more positive light.

And MONGO, for some reason you are always the one edging Rusf10 on and inciting them to go after me and take revenge, so you share in all this. That doesn't help them or anyone else. You too have a grudge against me. You didn't use to be like this.

If you both want to keep carrying a grudge against me, that's on you. It harms both of you more than me, and that's both a sad and unfortunate pattern that keeps repeating itself. A grudge is like cancer in the soul, just like being unforgiving. It will keep gnawing away within you. If you could let go of it you'd both find more peace. We don't have to have wonderful feelings about each other, but you'd be better off without that grudge. Really, just let it go, and take the high road. You're both better than this. --

talk) 06:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

BullRangifer, keep up the good work. You just carry on as usual...dont change a thing. Keep doing exactly what you've been doing.--MONGO (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I was told after a one day ban last summer that all non-complimentary personal commentary about another editor--even if you're simply repeating something the editor has said about himself--is considered out of bounds. I found this clarifying at the time, and I've tried to abide by it since then, and I do think it is helpful advice. At that time, on my talk page, there was something of a consensus to reject the distinction made above between personal criticism and personal attacks. We should really be making no such distinction in my view. You don't need to talk about other editors to edit content. But, as expected, I have seen that this standard is really only for people like you and me, and another standard is in place for others. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"this standard is really only for people like you and me, and another standard is in place for others." This is precisely the problem. @

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]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

Following up from several pings I got from AN/I the other day, yes the sanction is depricated, and sorry for not logging it. It slipped my mind at the time. In the absence of a formal sanction, you should still consider this a warning about filling vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Rusf10,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much easier to deal with current disputes had you not posted your "final thoughts." As hints for how to use Wikipedia procedure: 1)don't overgeneralize. Link to other instances if necessary, but don't draw conclusions 2) do not show animus. A plain objectivity works best. Rarely is someone out to get you in particular. If they are, rely on others to see it for themselves.

@

Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The following sanction now applies to you:

If Rusf10 initiates an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous, a 1-month topic ban from the topic area may be imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at

WP:AE

.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

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. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please also note the closing warning that sanctions will follow any actions that appear to be retaliation as explained at "some sanction against Rusf10 is warranted" in the closed report. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your tenacity in sticking to your position that MSNBC should be defined as the liberal organization that it is. I tried to insert language describing the network as liberal or left leaning, and was blasted out of the water each time. The overwhelmingly liberal editors here simply refuse to allow anything but their own POV in articles. Keep up the good fight! GlassBones (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the page, "William Barr," I added two lines of important information about the relationship between William Barr, his father Donald Barr, and Jeffrey Epstein. The edits were small, convey uncontroversial and biographically relevant facts, and were backed up with reputable journalistic news sources. You undid my revisions, noting that the article is about William Barr, not Donald Barr. Of course, this objection is irrelevant, since my edits were also about William Barr, and the mention of Donald Barr occurs in a paragraph that already contained details about Donald Barr, who is William Barr's father. If you believe that the article should contain *no* information about Donald Barr, then you should remove that entire paragraph and make your case for doing so on the discussion page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1120:60:F8AE:4E8:E3C5:353F (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction placed on you relating to filing administrative sanctions is now removed per an AN discussion. Good luck! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area. It's a month early, but I'm hitting a bunch of editors at the same time and better a month early than x months late. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Alansohn has requested an end to their one-way iban with you

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:SPORTSfever Television Network, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

It appears you have nothing to say about this AE report, such as its description of a user's behaviour, its diffs, or anything like that. To instead take the report as an opportunity to attack the filer over something completely different, as you did here is simply abuse of a noticeboard. What does your opinion that JzG ought not to be an admin have to do, even remotely, with the report? Did he file the report as an admin action, or has he acted as an admin in relation to the user Eternal Father? (I'll help you with the answer: no, certainly not.) Please consider removing your post. All it accomplishes is make you look bad. Bishonen | tålk 18:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Rusf10, which "controversial opinions"? That the Democratic Party is centre-right? That's an objective fact. This chart is representative, there are dozens out there like it. Sanders and Warren are centre-left, the mainstream of the Democratic Party is centre-right. Guy (help!) 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Rusf10, https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

, and others. The Democratic Party is to the right of parties like the Liberal Democrats in the UK, they align well with Germany's CDU. I have no idea why you would consider this remotely controversial. In fact the reason that Sanders and Warren stand out to such an extent is that they are centre-left candidates, whose policies are aligned with the European centre-left social democratic movement. And being centre-left puts them well to the left of the mainstream in the party, though the success of AOC and others does suggest that might be moving as younger voters become more engaged.

You mustn't view this through a lens of 2020 America. Of course the Democrats appear left by comparison with the 2020-era GOP. But a moment's reflection will show you that this will put Reagan and GWB in the centre, which is absurd.

I suggest you read the article on the overton window. Guy (help!) 19:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This political compass website that you like simply is not a reliable source. It is a complete mystery where the came up with this scale.--

Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Rusf10

, and see the below as well. But there are two things here.

First: is the Democratic Party centre-right? That will depend on the specific analysis used. Straight left-right models give a different answer tot he more modern two-axis models, some of it depends on how you score individual questions, and some on how you define "the Democratic Party" (Biden's politics are to the right of Klobuchar's, for example). One might reasonably ask where the party's platform would lie if unconstrained by the need to be electorally acceptable, given that the Overton window is so far tot he right now. Reasonable people may differ. Centre-right, centre or centre-left, all will depend on how you define the terms and how you define the centre of gravity of the party. I would say centre-right (aligning with the CDU).

Second: is the view that the Democratic Party is centre-right, controversial? No, it is not. Politics exists outside the US as well. There are plenty of Keynesians in mainstream European politics, and precious few in the US. The Democratic platform remains, as of today, market-driven solutions. Adoption of a universal single-payer healthcare system and improved social security, funded by wealth taxes, would push them into centre-left territory for sure.

Now, the idea that the Democrats are centre-right might be wrong, by some measures of the various terms involved, maybe they are closer to the centre, but it's defensible.

As to AOC being a socialist, no, she is not. She calls herself a

democratic socialist, which is a different thing, but even that is questionable: I don't think she actually supports universal social ownership, for example. But democratic socialist is as good a label as any for both her and Sanders. Both would be solidly in the mainstream centre-left in Europe, and both are acknowledged as being at the outer edges of the Democratic Party. Guy (help!) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. I just read this statement of yours. As a European I can tell you that, yes, in many other parts of the world the Democratic Party would be considered more centre-right than centre-left. Sanders and Warren would be considered centre-left but they don't represent the party mainstream, yet. And yes, the Republican Party would be considered far-right in many aspects. US politics are strange. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rusf10. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me again. - MrX 🖋 15:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not about you but you're kind of involved. - Alexis Jazz 18:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please enable your account's email feature? I'd like to contact you privately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitreous humour (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to give wikipedia my email address for several reasons. I also think it is a very bad feature in wikipedia since it encourages stealth canvassing.--

Rusf10 (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I'll ask you what I wanted to ask here in your user talk. I have recently been studying this page, but it isn't up to date. Several reports from the American Politics topic area, such as this one, are missing from that list. I would like to have a complete version of that page to refer to in discussions outside Wikipedia. I noticed you were one of the last users to update that page, so would you be willing to update it again and turn it into a complete list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitreous humour (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I may update it in the future, haven't given much thought to it. Couldn't you just create your own list on another website?--

Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know enough about the history of that topic area to adequately update the list by myself. But if you're willing to do it, I could try to help you. I can't update the list by myself, but I could provide links to some of the reports that need to be added. Would you like me to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitreous humour (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusf10 — and here, a 2/3 'consensus' that very arguably wasn't would seem to merit a 2/3 consensus to enforce — not a 1/2 'consensus' to overturn. Humanengr (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the notice about BLP discretionary sanctions or do you need an official alert? Volunteer Marek 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you implying?. I'm not into playing games.--

Rusf10 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request relating to your entirely-unsupported attack on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read". Do you think those are terms people might type into Wikipedia in the hope of arriving more quickly at CNN? Hint: I regard them as pure trolling. Bishonen | tålk 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Just dropping formal notice of an AN regarding Alansohn's 1-way IBAN towards you Nosebagbear (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to the GOP RfC. I fell for the initial scoping of the question where it was implied that we had only these three options. You were correct that we didn't have to pick from any of the above. This isn't the first time I've seen a carefully crafted RfC where the choices end up being limited and all in one direction vs covering the spectrum of what prior discussions/consensus would support. Springee (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I'm just sick of people manipulating RFCs like that for political purposes. An RFC should be neutrally worded and then you express your opinion below.--

Rusf10 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

• Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again!

• https://tvnewscheck.com/uncategorized/article/sinclair-to-buy-8-new-age-stations-for-90m/
• https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/sep/11/sinclair-buys-local-tv-stations/324534/ - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:15 on March 28, 2021 (UTC) 07:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Reverted and reported. You were warned. Do it again, I take it ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:32 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because its definitely more of a forum-type post, but what the flying heck is going on with Bally Sports and their website and app? I was very surprised that the "Coming Soon" notice didn't appear on the Bally Sports website the day of the launch date announcement. Further, I'd have had sports stories on the website for a week before the launch, or at least a link to a Sinclair-owned website like Stadium. I'm Assuming Good Faith that this might not have been done for legal reasons, but there is absolutely no credible reason that the site should not have launched at Midnight on March 31. (I know I looked at it expecting a launch.) This looks to be a SNAFU of epic proportions. Heads should roll! BilCat (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The website went live today, probably some time this morning East Coast time. Hopefully the app won't be too far behind, and will actually work! BilCat (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is Diamond Sports Group the owner of Bally Sports, and DSG's owners are the parent of Bally Sports?! LooneyTraceYT (Where it never goes out of style • contribs) 21:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I am familiar with the way this person operates.--

Rusf10 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SportsChannel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Altice.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It really was a different time back then — mayors really were once considered "inherently" notable as long as the city surpassed an entirely subjective "regional prominence" test. But there weren't actually any specific standards for how "regional prominence" would be measured, so as long as a city's article made it sound regionally prominent there was no requirement to actually source its mayors beyond technical verification that they had existed as mayors. Yeah, it sounds stupid, given all that we now know about how determined some people are to fill Wikipedia with unsourceable junk — it was stupid, and I say that as someone who was there. But just because our rules have changed, and I've changed along with them, doesn't mean I've always actually remembered all of the old junk I created in the past for the purposes of getting rid of it myself. So, again, no worries. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Fallbach (Inn, Innsbruck), which you proposed for deletion. A quick Google search already shows that there exist sources with significant coverage, although they are in German.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cyfal (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Lohbach (Inn), which you proposed for deletion. Significant coverage can be found by taking a look at the references present in the German version of this article, thus it is clearly notable.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cyfal (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Aldranser Bach, which you proposed for deletion. Although the article is still missing sources, with a quick Google search I've found some more information about this river, I expect that further sources in Austrian books do exist, especially because it is a protected area.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cyfal (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Weiherburgbach, which you proposed for deletion. Although the article is still missing sources, with a quick Google search I've found some more information about this river, I expect that further sources in Austrian books do exist, especially because it is in the town of Insbruck.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Small Pond (Innsbruck), which you proposed for deletion. Although the article is still missing sources, significant coverage shurely exists in Austrian sources, especially because it is near a castle.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hi Rusf10, please note that

@

Rusf10 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe you can consider the Small Pond as an uncontroversial PROD case. However, if you take a look in your on the vast amount of {{Old prod}} you added, a quite large number was contested. So you should re-adjust your view of what is controversial or not. --Cyfal (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to this-- your prod statement on

talk) 00:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I never "blamed" you. I didn't write the article and I don't care who did. I just said not to prod an article about someone with hundreds of appearances on television--that would be controversial and this not a good reason to prod. Best to avoid subjects and eras out of your depth--where walked sources will do the trick. Stick to geographic locations--you seem rather successful in that sphere.

talk) 02:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I did read USEFUL and LISTOUTCOMES before I linked them. I was trying to be ironic. The frustrating aspect of the discussion is that I don't get responses to the particular points I present. You are much more responsive and I appreciate your thoughts. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Grand Pond, which you proposed for deletion. Although the article is still missing sources, the text - which is taken from the German Wikipedia shows that coverage exists, I guess in Austrian sources - the history mentions Innsbruck Information. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Cyfal (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I somehow forgot the references. This is now fixed. Can I remove the deletion tag? Best regards Notafly (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Ps More on Barraud later.[reply]

Hi! At the article Çamiçi High Plateau, you reverted my edits to fix "plataeu" with "plateau". Are you sure the correct word is "plataeu"? Appreciate your response. CeeGee 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For easiness, you can check Plateau. CeeGee 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC),[reply
  ]

• OK. I see. I was not aware of my typo. However, instead of reverting, a correction would be more helpful. CeeGee 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a man who has the lowest title of honor that can be given in the U.K., below a baron but above a knight, and given from father to son A little explanation is obviously required. What that means is that baronet is the lowest hereditary title that can be passed on. However, below it are eleven grades of knighthood and damehood, which confer titles, and seven levels of companion and commander (of which CBE is the lowest), which do not but which have long been held to satisfy

@

Rusf10 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(1) The article already said he was an MP and this was sourced; you just didn't read it properly before nominating. (2) Precedent and consensus is very clear that CBEs and above (including knights and 1st baronets) are considered notable per

WP:ANYBIO, as I have shown; suggesting that this is not "a well-known and significant award or honor" is obviously ridiculous to anyone with any knowledge of the British honours system. (3) Listening to people who obviously do know what they're talking about on a particular subject is always a good idea rather than claiming you've researched it and then showing that you don't really understand what it is that you've read. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I fear you are the one being arrogant. But as you are clearly not prepared to listen to anyone else or accept that you do not know everything, I shall not comment further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cyfal (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Feel free to send to AfD2 at your convenience. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rusf10. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stifle (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... putting this here rather than in the AfD location as it's a personal detail: if you like the idea of creating a page for the concept of launched-from-a-lifeboat inflatables, to replace the X-class, Y-class and any other mini-pages of dubious notability, and if consensus leans that way, then I do have a lifeboat enthusiast friend who might be able to draft appropriate text. No guarantee, I haven't asked... Elemimele (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a source that Bally Sports is using their own branding on the former Fox College Sports networks. Do you have one? I'm wondering if changing the name on the article was the right move.

@

Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page watcher) I had the same question, and also haven't been able to find anything either. Perhaps we can ask at one of the college sports projects and see.if someone has the channels on their cable system. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 14:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Deprodding of Scala Eisrevue

I am leaving this message to let you know that the article

PROD is not permitted. Kind regards, --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

AfD of interest

Hello. This is to inform you that there is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brake check which you may be interested in, as you !voted in an AfD on the same article back in May. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your question on Bally Sports

Here's the MSG TV schedule for the next week, all the Bally Syndications: America Ninja Warrior, the French Open, Volleyball, airs on MSG or MSG Plus. The only Bally content that YES carries is the ACC on RSN package which is part of a seperate deal. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Baja Broadband

The article

Baja Broadband has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

Short lived cable service, minimal sourcing at best

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Baja Broadband

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Baja Broadband 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/Baja Broadband 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.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Nutley, New Jersey

Thankyou for creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Nutley, New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

WP:SYNTH. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of

WETU-LD

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

WETU-LD 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/WETU-LD 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WMBC-TV, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]