User talk:TheScrubby

Hello, Thescrubbythug, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 14:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thescrubbythug, I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your edits and your constant involvement ranging from talk pages to constructive edits. I've read some of the comments you were referring to in 2021 and I wanted to let you know to keep up the good work. I've had my fair share of hostile users back at Simple English Wikipedia a few years back. Well, just keep your chin up and keep editing. These barnstars used to be a big thing at Simple English and I thought you'd be deserving of one. Keep it up! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your continuous good work. From one Berner to another! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to leave a personal note of “thanks” myself for you having sent me thank-you’s after my last few edits. I appreciate the support and comraderie that demonstrates. As I stated on the Norm thread when you were being targeted, we should all be working collaboratively for the betterment of the site, to paraphrase. Take care bud. -PeaceInOurTime2021 PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate this message, cheers. Yeah, what went down on the Norm Macdonald thread was 100% unacceptable and not in line with the spirt of how we ought to do things around here - and thankfully that behaviour was endorsed by nobody on the Talk page. But yeah, keep up the good work around here! Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Happy Vukky.png	91.225.105.30 has given you a Vukky! You see, Vukkies promote WikiLove. Hopefully this Vukky has made your day better. Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a cute Vukky by adding {{subst:Give Vukky}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This edit to the Division of Pearce seems to imply that retiring members stop being members of Parliament when the writs for the election are issued. Can you show me a source which says that is the case. Steelkamp (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not when the writs are issued, but Wikipedia has always had it so that members who are retiring cease to be members on the day Parliament is dissolved, rather than election day when their successors are elected. This can be seen in any other seat page when you look at the end date of the tenure of retiring members, which never has it on election day unless they lose their seat. My edit on Pearce and other such seats reflect this. TheScrubby (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheScrubby! It's The Voivodeship King - you might remember me from the 2021 and 2022 pages. I accidentally clicked on your page and noticed the boxes denoting political views and beliefs and was wondering how to add them to my page. Mine is quite bland. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, so basically I was in the same position as you some time ago - like you, I saw the boxes on other user pages. I just clicked "edit page" and copied the boxes that aligned with myself and my views, and pasted them onto my own user page. You're free to also do that for yourself, if you'd like. TheScrubby (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheScrubby! How you doing? In the latest discussion on the Talk:2022 page, you refer to me with a feminine pronoun. Obviously nothing offensive, I just wanted to inform you that, insofar as I'm a cismale, I use masculine pronouns. Oh, and thanks for defending my edits on the photo of Queen Elizabeth II...it's honestly generated a debate I don't think I ever expected to find on Wikipedia in my lifetime. regards! _-_Alsor (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for letting me know. My apologies; will amend the comment on the talk page. Just amazed that they would misinterpret your edit summary to the extent that it did, because from my point of view what you said was pretty clear-cut and there was no implication that you were against including Elizabeth's image permanently or anything. TheScrubby (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the image at Olivia Newton-John here against clear consensus on the talk page. It has been reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: Quite simply because with her passing it would be far more appropriate to use an image of her in her prime rather than as a much older woman. That plus I simply wasn’t aware until after my edit was reverted that there was that Talk page discussion. Would help if there was a hidden note next to the infobox image saying not to change without a Talk page consensus. TheScrubby (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good suggestion, I've added a note. Polyamorph (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheScrubby: this message is to just tell you thank you, thank you for bringing GoldCheddar30 to the sockpuppet investigations page for Niko the Biko, I just can't thank you enough, and I am thrilled to see the 2022 talk page get semi protected hopefully till the end of the year. 4me689 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4me689: while I appreciate your gratitude, I wouldn't exactly rest on our laurels yet - although we certainly won this battle. While there's obvious support for Talk:2022 to be semi-protected, it hasn't happened yet and I don't know if any of the mods are willing to (finally) get it done even now. In other words, there's no guarantee that it'll happen at all. Also, there's still unfinished business regarding Golden Matrix, who is very obviously a sockpuppet of CountingStars500, but whose investigation requires more evidence. Hopefully you're able to complete what's left of what needs to be done to wrap it up. TheScrubby (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an arbitration regarding the Barbra Walters 2022 article dispute to the dispute resolution board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2022 Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t see the need for such an action at all - every now and again there’s no consensus for the inclusion of particular figures, and very rarely is such an action taken. There’s been plenty of instances over the years where I’ve disagreed very firmly with a particular figure’s inclusion or exclusion, and my view was not in line with consensus (or lack of consensus), but I’ve never gone so far as to go to dispute resolution, which I think is more than a little heavy handed. TheScrubby (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've decided to concede the dispute. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 16#Template:John Cain Sr sidebar. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am notifying you because you were mentioned in a post regarding the ongoing dispute relating to WikiProject Years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you'll reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. We'll never get those Year pages sorted out without your help. Deb (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, old foe

I recently noticed your retirement announcement, as I was unaware of (or indifferent to) the discussion surrounding long term ownership at WikiProject Years. Though I did not agree with many (most, all) of your verdicts (or userboxes) in the 2023 talk page, the point of talk pages is to settle debates. You were good settling debates, and your 12,065 edits speak for themselves.

Wikipedia administrators and veterans are continously hindering this encyclopedia's development, their line of thinking is demonstrably incorrect. They are bullies who specialise in blackmail, they are palpably detrimental to this formerly-great site.

This broken encylopedia should regret not beholding you again, not for one final time.

I:- regret that I should leave this place without again beholding you.

Please do return, entirely at your own discretion.

Thank you. Wikianon2023 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have retroactively read the whole ordeal, and this particular comment stuck out to me.

This is hard evidence of you being subject to a kangaroo court. It was a political hitjob, they did not appreciate the defendants defending themselves. It is vile to see. Wikianon2023 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what you're referring to here, when you talk of a political hitjob? 122.150.92.52 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikianon2023 user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the work you've recently done on the federal election division articles – they look much cleaner now! :) J2m5 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you reverted my edit there, I was wondering if there's a reason there's a reason that all of them look like that (unless its just because its consistent with the other articles) and if there was a way to change them. reppop^talk 20:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]