User talk:Rstrug

September 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Global warming. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McSly (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t start this edit war.

Capitalism is not being criticized in this work it just happens to be the setting.

At Wikipedia you have to cite, that is fact.

If you’re going to put what amounts to communist propaganda, then you need to cite something from the creators or even a specific scene where the characters say something.

Citation is needed. Rstrug (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Global warming

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.prokaryotes (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page to make a case in regards to your edit, instead of reinserting an image against consensus.prokaryotes (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Reductio ad absurdum

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to remove referenced material that is supported by a consensus of editors. To do so is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia maintained by consensus. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: You are editing against consensus at Reductio ad absurdum

Recently you've been trying to add content to Reductio ad absurdum, which several other editors have removed. You need to stop. You've been warned about edit warring before (see above). As advised above, what should do is discuss your proposed addition on the talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

If instead, you continue to try to add this content into the article without first achieving a consensus for your proposed additions on that article's talk page, I will block your account from editing. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: Paul, this is ridiculous. The above edit war was something completely different. The content that I put back was there for months. The edit war is the person removing the content! Rstrug (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that your current editing dispute was about the same thing as the others mentioned above, only that you've been warned about edit warring three times before. As to what constitutes edit warring, please read WP:EDITWAR:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, [emphasis added] regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.

Thanks for opening a discussion about your proposed addition to the talk page. I hope that the issue can be resolved there amicably. Paul August ☎ 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (Rstrug) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

additional text — Anita5192 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning January 10, 2023

I see you've been warned multiple times for the edit war, so this is my final warning. Once again, you silently restore the source request without any new arguments and ignoring the clarification on the last case, I will write to the administrators about the edit war and ignoring the discussion. I hope you understand, I warned you. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No? This is the first so-called warning. I am following the rules. Wikipedia is built on citation. Never have I heard someone challenging the need for citation.

“Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.”

It’s challenged. Citation needed. Rstrug (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn `t need. You have already been pointed out that this information was in an interview with the creators and could easily be seen in the show itself. This is first. Secondly, you silently ignored the answer to you and silently reverted the edit. This is a literal edit war, directly ignoring instructions to start a discussion if your edit caused disagreement from other users. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody pointed that out. What are you talking about? If there was an interview, then cite it. The rules of Wikipedia is to cite things. Refusing to cite is the cause of the edit war. Rstrug (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of an argument, and certainly not going to indulge you in the obvious attempt to formally refer to the rules in an attempt to justify an edit war. Since you clearly have a conflict of interest and are trying to remove information due to political opinions, I will simply ask for your blocking. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]