User talk:RugbyFan88
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did atUnited States at the Rugby World Cup, without giving a valid reason for the removal in theedit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please useyour sandbox for that. Thank you.Filmssssssssssss (talk)20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did atSpain at the Rugby World Cup, you may beblocked from editing.Janan2025 (talk)21:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you made edits to the infoboxes for Australian elections regarding the Coalition. While I appreciate you wereWP:BOLD with your edits, I have reverted these edits because the party leader is there representing the Coalition as a whole, not the Liberal party, this is an important difference to make.Comfisofa (talk)16:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to1953 Labour Party deputy leadership election, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please useyour sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page. Thank you. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedList of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHouse of Lords Act. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk)07:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RugbyFan88. Thank you for your work onLeader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords. Another editor,11wallisb, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:
Please provide areliable source for this article. Thank you!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|11wallisb}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
11WB (talk)18:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello andwelcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions toWikipedia are appreciated, buta recent edit of yours has anedit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing anarticle's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to usethe sandbox to make test edits.Of your last 500 edits, 335 had the same summary of "added a change". It would be more helpful if you described what kind of a change that was.Belbury (talk)08:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To you, does it feel necessary to add Ten (as in replacing the stations' independence pre-aggregation) to pages of select regional Australian TV stations - even if their (the stations') relationships with Ten pre-aggregation was limited to carriage of select programs (of the stations' choice)?TheJosi (talk)08:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLlanthomas Castle Mound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageParliamentarian.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)22:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for your edits changing links fromMember of the House of Lords toMember of theHouse of Lords.
The former link leads to a list of current members, and the latter leads to the article about the House of Lords itself.
Now you're doing the opposite, and I'm guessing that you're doing that on articles on current members, while your other changes were made to former members.
Regardless of whether the person in the article is a current or former member, when the reader clicks the link, what they want to know is obviously what the House of Lords is, not who else is a member. Please seeMOS:LINKCLARITY andMOS:SPECIFICLINK.
So please stop making those changes.
Thank you.HandsomeFella (talk)12:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RugbyFan88 (talk)18:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects exist for a reason, and there is no need to change from a redirect to a piped link showing the same text as the redirect. Please see the above guidance.Spike 'em (talk)11:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost never helpful to replacewhich is exactly what you are doing.Spike 'em (talk)12:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply][[redirect]]with[[target|redirect]]
Please stop making edits likethis in direct violation ofMOS:NOPIPE. And ideally go back and revert every article you've done it on. Thanks.FDW777 (talk)12:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the textSpike 'em (talk)12:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're now going round removing links to "Lord Temporal", like you didhere with a misleading edit summary. Please stop this disruption.FDW777 (talk)12:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuing to breachMOS:NOPIPE? Am I really going to have to go through all your edits and undo it again? If you do it one more time I will bring this toWP:ANI.Spike 'em (talk)16:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[[Lord Temporal]] with[[Lords Temporal|Lord Temporal]]. I am not your dogsbody to clear up messes you create and if you had any honour you would fix the issue yourself.Spike 'em (talk)16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related todiscussions aboutinfoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you maylearn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
FDW777 (talk)12:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg) | This user is a member of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. |
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits toJames Bethell, 5th Baron Bethell when you modified the page, you introducedunknown parameters. Just because you specify|some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The|some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact thehelp desk for assistance.Thank you.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)15:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits toNicholas True, Baron True when you modified the page, you introducedunknown parameters. Just because you specify|some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The|some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is aShow preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check thehistory of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact thehelp desk for assistance.Thank you.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)16:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Please seeMOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization."
"Hereditary" and "Elected Hereditary Peer" shouldn't be capitalized.
And if you're reverted, you don't revert back, you start a discussion. SeeWP:BRD. It'sbold,revert,discuss – not WP:BRDD.
Cheers.HandsomeFella (talk)22:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Pleasestop editing the page and use thetalk page to work toward creating a version of the page that representsconsensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaininghow this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution such as athird opinion. In some cases, you may wish to requestpage protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editormust not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.
You've been asked several times to refrain from unnecessary capitalization and reverting back instead of starting a discussion perWP:BRD, so you are hereby formally warned.
Please stop adding speculative life-peer hidden sections to CofE bishops' infoboxes. It's not helpful, and is implicitly a violation ofWP:CRYSTAL. Sarah Mulally, in particular, is about to take up a post that she's expected to hold for several years and during which it would be unheard-of for her to receive such a distinction.GenevieveDEon (talk)16:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might happenis not a good enough reason to do this. If it does happen then someone can amend the article at the time, and no prior preparation is needed.Spike 'em (talk)01:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of a page by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, intoJohn Gallacher, Baron Gallacher. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits thepage history, which islegally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to bemoved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account isfour days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the"Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may behidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates aredirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions atrequested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them atWikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.EggRoll97(talk)20:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Current format | |
|---|---|
| Member of the House of Lords | |
| Life peerage 1 January 2026 | |
Suggested alternative | |
|---|---|
| Member of the House of Lords Lord Temporal | |
| Assumed office 1 January 2026 | |
I note that you've done a lot of work in reformatting the infoboxes of life peers with|status= and|termlabel=. However, I think that this is not the most ideal way to do so, as it gives the impression that the peerage is associated with a single date.
The default "Assumed office" is clearer as it immediately indicates that membership began on the specified date and continues to the present. Moreover, when a peer leaves the House of Lords and an end date is added, it gives the false impression that the life peerage has ended as well.
I have created a mock-up of a suggested alternative to the right. This is clearer in not conflating the distinction between Lords membership and a life peerage. What do you think? — RAVENPVFF ·talk ·14:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RugbyFan88, yourrecent request atWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions atWikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.
This notification was delivered byTenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page)TenshiBot (talk)00:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RugbyFan88, yourrecent request atWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions atWikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.
This notification was delivered byTenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page)TenshiBot (talk)00:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RugbyFan88, yourrecent request atWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions atWikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.
This notification was delivered byTenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page)TenshiBot (talk)00:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Incumbent members of the House of Lords has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.PamD13:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RugbyFan88, yourrecent request atWikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions atWikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.
This notification was delivered byTenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page)TenshiBot (talk)12:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
