User talk:RugratsFan2003

2017

Welcome! Hello, RugratsFan2003! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 11:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts April 2017 Please stop making disruptive edits. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC) If you falsely accuse anybody else of vandalism, you will be blocked. I've protected the article you've been reverting so you can make your case on the talkpage in lieu of blocking you for edit-warring and bad-faith accusations. For the time being the article is at status quo ante. Please make a case for why the version you propose documents a notable organization - i.e., why the parent company meets Wikipedia's standards for notable companies, rather than redirecting to the radio station per standard practice for non-notable parent companies. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Please read I guess you haven't seen this: Please read our assume good faith guideline. While I don't see why the article is being turned into a redirect, it better to use talk pages to communicate rather than edit summaries. Also, please read WP:NOTVAND. Constantly leveling incorrect accusations of vandalism is not something you want to do here. --NeilN talk to me 01:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC) April 2017 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at K288FP. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please discuss your changes on article talk page. Do not continue edit warring or you will be blocked. ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC) June 2017 Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to I Want to Know What Love Is. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC) July 2017 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce jokes into articles, as you did at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Change_(Taylor_Swift_song)&diff=prev&oldid=788730896, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Kellymoat (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RugratsFan2003 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RugratsFan2003, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 172.58.43.189 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia's policies relating to music genres Hi, RugratsFan2003. While I understand (on a very personal level) how frustrating it is when another editor refuses to justify, explain, or otherwise have a constructive conversation about their editing, responses like this: [1] achieve nothing other than raising the risk of administrator action against you. To answer your question on the other editor's talk page, in order to ascribe a particular genre to a song/album/artist, that song/album/artist should be described as belonging to that genre in verifiable, reliable published sources. This article contains more information: [2] and links to relevant policies. If you would like any other help or advice, feel free to post on my talk page. Cheers, Cjhard (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC) July 2017 Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page KLBL. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. Kellymoat (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RugratsFan2003 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RugratsFan2003, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC) July 2017 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RugratsFan2003. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Katietalk 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I had no idea that what I did was wrong. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I understand that the pages that I created were inappropriate. I promise that i will instead make useful contributions. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: It's hard to believe it took a block to convince you of this. Worse, that it took two blocks so far this month, and it's only the 5th of the month. As such, I decline to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I understand that I have been blocked for disruptive editing, will not continue to cause disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: Slow down. Look at this talk page. See the many, many warning notices from many different people? That means you are doing something seriously wrong. Simply agreeing you've done something wrong, without any indication that you actually understand what the problem is, is not productive. It's going to take more than 1 sentence. Please take the remaining time until this block expires to read the pages linked in your welcome message, and in the notes and warnings above, because I'm afraid if disruption happens again when the block expires, the next block will be indefinite. If there is another completely inadequate unblock request, I'll remove talk page access for the duration of the block, to prevent wasting other people's time. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #18663 was submitted on Jul 06, 2017 01:08:12. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Many people have left warning notices on my talk page. I now understand what Wikipedia is. When I get unblocked, I will use talk pages prior to editing the actual pages to make sure everyone on Wikipedia is okay with my edits. Also, I will apologize to every Wikipedia user that has left a warning notice on my talk page. I should have never make those edits to Central Arkansas Radio Group, LLC, K288FP, I Want to Know What Love Is, Change (Taylor Swift song) and KLBL. Also, I will not attempt to become an administrator until I am ready to become one. When I get unblocked, I promise peace and everything good. I really want everyone on Wikipedia to know that I am sorry. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline. You are no longer blocked.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Your block is set to expire on its own in a very short time; please take careful notice of the warnings you have been given. As far as becoming an administrator is concerned, note that currently most editors expect to see at least 5000 manual edits created over at least a year of activity. Some editors would say more edits over a longer period. the edits in question should be spread over the various areas of the project, including not only article space and talk space, but also WP:CSD, WP:AfD, WP:RFA and perhaps WP:AIV. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, RugratsFan2003. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2018

January 2018 Thanks for contributing to the article List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2017. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC) March 2018 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nickelodeon Movies. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC) From this point on, take it to the talk page. We have one source about the untitled film. Not enough. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC) And also, this type of warning is unacceptable. Work with other users rather than trying to 'win' an edit war. Nate • (chatter) 17:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring and other disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I had absolutely no intent to start an edit war. My edits were sourced using a website called Cartoon Brew. I don't believe that Cartoon Brew is a website that violates any of Wikipedia's rules. Since my edits were sourced, I was just trying to do what I believed was right. However, if you want me to add more sources, I know of some more. RangoLoudHouse1234 said that Nicktoons was a fake movie in the edit summary by saying that the Nickelodeon Wiki did not have the movie on their website. The Nickelodeon Wiki is a fan-edited website, which violates Wikipedia's rules. I can understand why you would accuse me of edit warring. However, I tried to prevent edit warring by posting a message on the talk page and warning the users who reverted my edits on their talk pages. I had absolutely no idea that the messages that I left on the talk pages were unacceptable. I was just warning the users of disruptive editing like the page said to. It didn't say what type of message I had to leave. If you could please unblock me, I will try my best to make everything right again. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Decline reason: For the reasons explained below. Yamla (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. "Accuse" you of edit-warring? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] . You "tried to prevent edit warring by posting a message on the talk page and warning the users who reverted [your] edits on their talk pages"? Do you think that repeatedly making the same revert doesn't count as edit warring as long as you have warned other editors not to do the same thing????? The way to prevent edit warring is to not edit war, it is not to continue edit warring and tell everyone else not to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC) You say that you "just trying to do what [you] believed was right". You may not have noticed that the warning on edit-warring that I posted above says, in bold print, "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC) To add onto this, your user page says you will fight anyone who doesn't follow our policies. You should never get to the point of fighting at all; that's not how any website works. During this block period you need to take a good look at our policies and understand exactly why you've run into these blocks in the past. I reverted because you're holding firm to this one questionable source saying 'what we know' rather than 'this is definite'. We need more than that, and the confusion it's created with the SpongeBob III film's release date means if it's unclear, we don't run with that source. Nate • (chatter) 18:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am pleading guilty to all accusations of edit warring and disruptive editing. I didn't know that warning users on their talk pages still made it edit warring. Now, I do, and I will never do it again. Also, by 'trying to do what I believed was right', I meant what I believed was morally right and not that I believed that I was right. Either way, it doesn't matter now, because I thought that my edits were morally right, but they weren't. From my 2 previous blocks, I learned that using sources is a good way to assume good faith. I thought that using sources would not get me in trouble in an edit war, but I was wrong. Also, I would like to apologize for saying that I will fight anyone who does not follow Wikipedia's policies. I didn't think about anyone having a problem with the word 'fight'. I should've used a better word choice. From this block, I have learned that there are no exceptions to Wikipedia's edit warring policies. So of you could please unblock me, I promise that I will end this edit war and take everything to the talk page, in addition to replacing the word 'fight' with 'report'. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Decline reason: You were clearly warned (on this page) not to edit war two days before the block, yet you continued. So, I can't trust you when you say that you didn't know you shouldn't edit war. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System: RugratsFan2003 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #20889 was submitted on Mar 17, 2018 04:08:17. This review is now closed. --UTRSBot (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Nomination of McSkillet for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article McSkillet 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/McSkillet 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. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 10 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Country Airplay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nobody's Home (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Sorry about that! I meant to point it to Nobody's Home (Clint Black song)! I just fixed it! RugratsFan2003 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, RugratsFan2003. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) "Capaigning" about succession boxes 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 recently shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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 any 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. I'm addressing this on your own talk page, since I see that this behavioral issue has spread to multiple to other pages, including Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts, and my own talk page. Please note the following: Labeling the result of an RfC that didn't go your way to be "vandalism", as you did here, is considered blanket incivility and battlegrounding against everyone who doesn't agree with you. If it continues, you're liable to be blocked for WP:Disruptive editing. Same goes for campaigning against a unanimously decided RfC simply because you don't like the result. Declaring "I will not rest until I get exactly what I want", as you have done here and here, is an unmistakable declaration that you are going to engage in tendentious editing. If you do this again, or actually do engage in such behavior, a WP:Topic ban is likely, or perhaps simply an indefinite block, on grounds of lack of collaborative-editing competence, and not really being here to work on an encyclopedia. Whether you, individually and personally, knew of an RfC and participated in it is irrelevant. Wikipedia has about 30,000 editors per month, and consensus discussions are resolved by whoever from among that pool does bother to show up. No particular, specific person's input is required or is going to "carry the day". Wikipedia is not a place to try to "right a great wrong" or otherwise engage in activism-style behavior, especially not about trivial internal matters like which templates are used on which pages. Also, WP:RfCs are not votes. Consensus discussions are determined by the policy weight of the arguments presented, and your WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments would not have carried any weight, nor would your uncivil pronouncements like "I have no idea who in their right mind would think that removing them is a good idea." [11], [12] Labeling other editors as if they suffer mental problems is another type of personal attack which can get you blocked or banned. If you plan to continue sporadically (or more frequently) editing here, I strongly suggest a read of WP:HOTHEADS, which has good advice for staying out of administrative trouble when you get a bit emotional about something on Wikipedia. See also the law of triviality: minor peccadilloes like this are not worth getting emotional about, and doing so gets in the way of the important work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) PS: I see above that you were previously blocked for tendentious edit-warring on the basis of you feeling you had a "moral right" (your own words), and that you've been warned repeatedly against battlegrounding and declarations of intent to engage in battlegrounding [13] [14]. If it happens again, a long-term block is actually quite likely. If this went to WP:ANI right now, that's what the outcome would be already probably be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: Thank you for telling me that this would get me blocked. I'm trying not get blocked, but it's really hard not to. Is there any way that I can try to get succession boxes back without getting blocked? RugratsFan2003 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC) WP:RFC is the process you want. The short version: Open a neutrally-worded discussion about it, perhaps at WP:VPPOL (our broadest venue for airing proposals and questions that may affect a large number of articles). "Lobbying" or "fight" wording will not go over well. Try something simple and specific, e.g. "Should record-chart succession boxes be re-implemented as a navigation method at song and album articles?", on a line by itself. Linking right under it to the previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#RfC on whether succession boxes should appear in song and album articles would be advised. And it's okay to say something like "It's not clear whether the earlier discussion had broad enough input", without casting aspersions at other editors. Try to think of WP's ongoings as like a business meeting or an academic conference, not a 4Chan debate board. :-) Include a calm, invective-free rationale for why you want to use succession boxes for this purpose. Better yet, put your rationale in your own "* Yes, because ...." comment after the simple question. Then no one can complain that the RfC itself isn't neutrally worded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: Thank you. I might do this someday. I will admit that I did get too emotional about this. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

2019

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rock Radio Stations in Arkansas Template:Rock Radio Stations in Arkansas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Woohoo Hey, RugratsFan2003. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) @Mjs1991: Thank you! RugratsFan2003 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

GamerKiller2347

It seems as if people think that we're the same person due to edits that you made to my talk page. I know you're my friend, but could you please have not made those edits? GamerKiller2347 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I made the wrong decision with those edits. They won't happen again. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)