rte

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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 6,837,155 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]

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]

• 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]

@MONGO:I have no idea why you are agreeing with ELC. AE has never been a fair process. No matter what, every time I bring I complaint there I am attacked by biased admins, including one in particular who is completely arrogant and refused to recuse himself despite multiple people telling him he was WP:INVOLVED. I do not see how personal attacks on my talk page are automatically an AE issue.--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]

@MONGO:Not really your fault. This whole thing is a trap. BullRangifer basically interpreted user:Awilley's sanction/warning from last time to mean he can't personally attack anyone on an article talk pages, so that's means he now has a license to do so anywhere else he pleases(including user talk pages). Furthermore he refuses to admit he attacked me at all or apologize. Your diffs prove that his problem isn't just with me, but no one cares.--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]

@Awilley:I understand WP:NPA applies everywhere, but BullRangifer has taken it to mean until someone comes to him to specifically say that personal attacks aren't allowed on user talk pages (like you did with the sanction for article talk pages), that's this is okay. This is why I don't think you sanction really made sense anyway. You basically told BullRangifer that he can't personally attack people on article talk pages which is something he never was allowed to do to begin with. I would not have filed a complaint against BullRangifer this time if not for two reasons: 1. I was not involved with any current dispute with him when he attacked me. 2. He attacked my competence, the same exact thing he attacked me for in the past and was warned about.--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]

1. I'm not going to wait for Rusf10 to seek an apology. I'll strike it right now. It was ill-advised, and I'm sorry about that.

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." -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@BullRangifer:I do not accept your apology because it is not an apology. Even now, you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that you personally attacked me. And i have no idea why you keep referring to dispute resolution when we were weren't engaged in a dispute. You came here to attack me completely unprovoked. And although I respect others religious beliefs, I am not religious myself and do not appreciate you coming here to preach to me when you can't even admit to your own wrongdoing.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. -- BullRangifer (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. @Awilley: If BullRangifer were perceived as a "pro-Russian" editor, can you imagine admins at WP:AE making excuses for BullRangifer's atrocious Asperger's comment? I'm sure I'd be site-banned in short order for such a comment, and the very same admins now making excuses for BR would be leading the charge against me. This is what I meant by "ideological allies." It's obvious where the ideological sympathies of most of the admins active at WP:AE lie, and pretending this isn't an issue just perpetuates the problem. The Kafkaesque logic about banning Rusf10 from AE for making what almost everyone acknowledges is a valid complaint is just further confirmation of this ideological bias. The admins see a clear, egregious violation of Wikipedia's rules of civility (the Asperger's comment), but can't bring themselves to sanction an editor they politically align with, and instead propose a ban against the editor they politically dislike for the crime of bringing a valid complaint. It's so blatant, but the admins don't appear to care about even the appearance of impartiality any more. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

   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.

@DGG:Thanks for your advice and I can not thank you enough for being objective in this matter, but I call things the way I see them. MastCell's previous edit was on Dec 7th. He barely contributes to wikipedia at all anymore. Its pretty clear to me that someone (though I do not know who) summoned him to AE. MastCell wanted to topic ban me since June 2018 [1] over a dispute about using an opinion article as a reliable source. He called for a topic ban again here and said that questioning my "competence in this instance is arguably fair". Is he out to get me? You be the judge, but he is among the most biased admins and imo uses AE as a tool to ban people who's political beliefs do not align with his own. Another user has already documented his bias here.--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:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and 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 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. 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 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

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 here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was aghast to see that an article like Veracity of statements by Donald Trump exists on Wikipedia. You are absolutely right that it is an WP:Attack page. Trump derangement syndrome seems to have befallen Wikipedians. This is going to set a bad precedent. One could open up such an article just as well for US Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama who told untruths to the public that led to their military attacks against Iraq ("weapons of mass destruction") and Libya ("humanitarian") respectively. Not to mention for countless leaders of tinpot states. And then only people will realize that this is not the way to go, whatever their political leaning. So thanks for your delete proposal. You pointed to something that is rotten in the state of Wikipedia, its overt politicization. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Bishonen: I did address the AE report, I said it was a content dispute. There really is anything more to say than that. Whether JZG took administrative action against Eternal Father is actually irrelevant except for the fact that administrator's should be held to a higher standard. How come in every other instance the filer's behavior is fair game, but here its not? Being an administrator JZG should have to address the very controversial opinions he has expressed. I am really sick of your double standards.--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]

@JzG:That is not an objective fact, but the opinion of an anonymous coward who won't even put his name to it. Such analysis are always subjective, but here we don't even know what criteria was used. As per the article "The website doesn’t disclose its exact methodology of how it places politicians and parties on the quadrant, but says it considers speeches, manifestos, and sometimes voting records." The only one calling the Democrats center-right is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [2] and she's a self-declared socialist.--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 Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SPORTSfever Television Network".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

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]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as China News Network, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Chinese News Network, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, I have speedy deleted your redirects China News Network and Chinese News Network per speedy criterion WP:G3, specifically as blatant and obvious hoaxes. If you perpetrate such nonsense again, I'm likely to topic ban you from post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:I'm am very sorry that you see this as a hoax, that is not what I intended. I have seen the terms used to criticize CNN (an example of such criticism)as they have only recently begun to report on the Chinese government's poor handling of the corona virus (mainly the under-reporting of deaths). I'm not sure what the hoax actually would be, its just a term used to criticize the network (perhaps not as widespread as I thought), although I must say CNN is doing a much better job reporting this now than a few months ago.--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/Template:Z190 Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:15 on March 28, 2021 (UTC) 07:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]