User talk:Rubiscous

Your user talk page edited
Hi there.

I have removed some comments from this talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia policies that do not permit personal attacks (WP:NPA). Note, I do not consider you have done anything wrong in this. The matter concerning that user is being discussed on the admin noticeboard here. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the best thing for you to do is, simply wait a bit while it is resolved there. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * has been indefinitely blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment". Cheers,  Chzz  ► 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * and have been blocked as sock-puppets of Rastamouse-ting. The IP address  has also been blocked.
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Rastamouse-ting. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse site episodes
Nice to see you actually ADDED something positive rather than just remove.

BUT you are unfortunately quoting published *errors* as *fact* on the RM site as they miss out Episode 2 Da Bag A Bling & add in one that will be from the next series.

Series 1 ended now, repeats only now so interest will dip greatly until next series. Madjewelvisor (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse: Reverting to previous episodes data
you appear intent on adding published errors to this page simply as they are published does not mean they are suitable to be quoted verbatim, what is common sense to a viewer who has watched all 26 episodes will think "Wikipedia has got it wrong"

no encyclopedia would print such incorrect data knowingly, so to remove your need to keep putting your errors as fact, I have replaced the Episodes table with the previous one, which no-one can argue with

this should satisfy all parties as the issue is closed and neutral and undisputed data is left on the page, instead of confusing the reader with errors that you even admit you know are wrong

You have been reported too about your RASTAMOUSE issues
I thought you had wised up & just left it, apparently not. Why you keep wanting to vandalise Rastamouse weith wrong information is no better than those who put childish comments in. Madjewelvisor (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, Madjewelvisor is a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Feel free to disregard his comments; I removed one he left while not logged in this evening. I'm also reverting his edits to Rastamouse on sight because of the block evasion. See also Talk:Rastamouse for why I agree with your changes. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Jan 2012
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Rick Santorum, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I violated no policy thank you very much. The definition is well-sourced, and mentioning the text is not in itself defamatory towards the article's subject. Rubiscous (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility
Thank you very much for your extremely civil contributions to talk @ rick santorum. :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Your recent editing history at Rick Santorum shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. ''I can't believe no-one has warned you already, but here it is. You're done on this article for awhile. '' Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I misunderstood the 3RR rule, for some reason thinking it applied to only the same text not the entire article. I have no intention of disruption and note that last night I [moved to prevent an edit war.] Thanks. Rubiscous (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of British comic strips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing a problem the right way
I notice that you have - instead of taking the time to bring up the matter in discussion after being reverted - you chose to simply revert again. I am going to point out the Wiki Fact that reverting someone does not, in fact, change their mind. If anything, it entrenches their belief in that edit. The only result of that sort of thinking is being blocked. Conversely, the only hope you will have of changing my mind is to actually man up and talk to me. I apologize for the seeming harshness of this post, but you are a fairly good editor, and I am a bit surprised that you behaving in this way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * YOU are the one who failed to bring the matter up in discussion, not I. You want a change that is contention to stay then make a case for it and I will respond. The onus is on the editor wishing to make a change to commence discussions. It was incredibly rude of you to try to "instruct" me to do so in edit summaries. To make a change to an article then invite anybody who disagrees to complain about it on the talk page meanwhile reverting the change back in is absolutely NOT how things are done on Wikipedia. Ask yourself again whose behaviour has been questionable. Rubiscous (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to ask a question. When reverted, why did you not immediately head on over to the discussion page yourself? Dude, complaining to me about something for which you chose not to do yourself is, well, asinine. If I failed to head to the discussion page, you are shielded from doing such yourself. Disappointment after disappointment with you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Call it oppositional defiance. Your attempt to instruct me to start the discussion was WAY out of order. I was in no mood to kowtow to your unreasonable demand. Sorry. Rubiscous (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point (made earlier): when you revet someone and fail to initiate discussion into the matter, you polarize the opposing view into intransigence. Granted, I have already admitted that I should have initiated discussion, but the main point is, you could have very well done the same thing. You failed to do so, so maybe complaining about me not doing so isn't the best argument you can bring forth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing at all, as you were making the bold edit, and I was reverting back to the pre-bold version of the article as it stood. Surely you can see the difference. Rubiscous (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a limited amount of time i can spend on Wikipedia, and I have no intention of spending it trying to help someone who is under the mistaken impression they don't need it. The point is - and this is my last word on it - is that you reacted poorly to being reverted, as I did. You think you were totally in the right to forego discussion because you didn't think you had to. That, my misguided dude, is a pretty big weakness in your approach. I think it best we avoid each other for a bit; I might be able to edit with you again, but not anytime soon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue that I have is that you are absolutely in no position to chastise me. You decided to forego discussion first (per WP:BRD) and in the same breath with utter hypocrisy tried to shame me into starting the discussion. And then acted as if it was my problem when I declined to do so. That's the issue here. It's not about the discussion itself, it's about you questioning my behaviour whilst behaving far worse than I was. Rubiscous (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jack, while Rubiscous may have reverted you one time too many, the onus is on you, as the editor making a change, to build consensus for it. Rubiscous can't do that for you, so it makes a lot less sense for him to post on the talk page. Rubiscous made one additional revert instead of discussing, while you made two, and still haven't self-reverted the change you edit-warred into place, despite rather tepid support for it on the talk page compared to the longstanding version.
 * While the change itself is trivial and will soon be moot, I don't think it is appropriate or constructive for you to be telling him to "man up" (as if more machismo on Wikipedia would improve things) or dismissing him as a fanboy because he used the word "status".--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Reversion on Doctor (Doctor Who)
I wish to discuss the reversion of my edit. Thank you. Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up; my edit summaries will be accurate from now on. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Small font size

 * Please stop edit warring your bold formatting in. My argument about other infoboxes is entirely relevant, as if it is a problem then it is a widespread problem and there needs to be a project-wide discussion about this, not on Doctor (Doctor Who), new guidelines need to be set up as currently as far as I can see it is entirely permissable. It's compliant with MOS:ACCESS, if you have trouble with accessibility then there are options for you which small doesn't interfere with. Rubiscous (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a very widespread problem and I intend to deal with it at WP:ACCESS. There is no problem using {small} per se, but it is a problem when used double, as was the case here. It results in a fontsize of 9px (at default font settings), which is simply too small to be legible. None of any other Doctor Who articles (that I know of) use {small} in infoboxes; I made sure of that a long time ago. Note that accessability trumps use on oter pages. No reader should have to perform special measures to be able to read Wikipedia; that burden falls to those who have setups outside the norm (like big screen fonts), which I certainly have not. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed you should deal with it at WP:ACCESS as that is the place to do so. If you get the changes you desire then you can come back to Doctor (Doctor Who) and "lay down the law" but until then it's normal WP:BRD thank you. Rubiscous (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

NOPV on BLP for Ariel Fernandez
Dear Editor, In compliance with Wikipedia regulations, we would like to inform you that we have filed a discussion in the NPOV board that mentions your name. Thanks much for your attention. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

John Mann MP
You reverted edits on the page of John Mann claiming that we were in an edit war. You claim 'Original research, no source.' which is a lie as we referenced the agreement in the edit. We also discussed it on the talk page.


 * You were edit warring, as you were repeatedly reverting others who reverted you. Wikipedia has a limit on how many times you may revert within a 24 hour period. The sentence that you were repeatedly adding was not sourced, you did not provide a reference to an external publication that made the link between Livingstone's comments and the Haavara Agreement. Starting a discussion on the talk page is not carte blanche to add whatever you like or continue an edit war. Rubiscous (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of British comic strips for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British comic strips, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of British comic strips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)