Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Additionally, please avoid tampering with archived discussions.Novangelis (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You need to substantiate your claims or withdraw them as it is not acceptable to cast unfounded aspirations with regard to other editors. SpartazHumbug! 11:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Gimmie a sec and I'll diff away.LuciferWildCat (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK I have reviewed all the AFDs and worked out the reason. Your case is widely over the top and unsupported by any evidence. Seriously, you need to withdraw the allegations and apologise now. SpartazHumbug! 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
So he didn't nominate 18 articles all for the same cut and paste reason, and he hasn't whined to people on their talk pages about it?LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
So he wasn't being abusive having been told to individually nominate the articles and he hasn't wikistalked. Serious allegations you have made there. You seem impervious to the feedback of the other commentators in the thread who have all told you this. You cannot go round making serious claims without evidence and the feedback is that no-one sees the problems you claim in the evidence provided. Generally, if you are the only person to see something then you are the one in the wrong. I don't particularly want to sanction you, but insisting on repeating a serious allegation after being told repeatedly that its not a valid complaint is a severe case of Not listening, flogging a dead horse and casting unfounded assertions, which, as you already have been told, is unacceptable. SpartazHumbug! 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand and validate your concerns that I overeacted, however, not everyone has had a chance to opine yet. I think carrie for one might have something or another to say. I believe from my own observations of wikipedia with cases of any editor nominating many articles that they were severely admonished and blocked as that this was described as abusive. That is what I am going by. I also personally believe that following the two users to their talk pages to push a point is unaccaptable intimidation and from my understanding falls under the suspiction of wikistalking. Do you understand where I am coming from on this?LuciferWildCat (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Its perfectly normal to extend a conversation onto a user's talk page if its a wider issue. That's what they are for. It most certainly isn't wikistalking. Have you actually read the page on harrassment and wikistalking. That requires a pattern of edits not one. SpartazHumbug! 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Purpleback also commented on my Talk page to answer a query. They pointed out it is quite acceptable to batch nominate similar articles for deletion. To be honest I find it quite intimidating that someone would try and drag another Wikipedian down for following Wikipedia guidance and then taking time to communicate with other editors. Mass nominations are not abusive and I can't see any 'stalking' at all. Sionk (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It did not seem like friendly discussion to seemed to be causing a lack of enjoyment to wikipedia as stated as unacceptable in WP:STALK. I have seen editors blocked for mass nominations before and those are my reasons, the discussion is now over. Hopefully he will turn down the rhetoric now.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, please refrain from canvassing on either this or the Harpreet Sandhu article, and please do not ever use the lump-of-coal template again. It's in bad faith and worse taste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't canvass and I will continue to inform everyone when needed of important changes. It's not canvassing if you seek out impartial review from all points of view. It would be canvassing if I had only asked the deletes or comment onlies to review it while not giving the keeps a chance to change their mind and delete themselves. I will never use the lumo-o-coal template toward you again unless you go crazy, which I don't think you will. Feel free to give me a lump of coal back to get rid of any frustration. It's way better than say insulting me or holding a grudge and manages not to be offensive in any way while admonishing a bit nevertheless. Have a great day.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that you're a newcomer to Wikipedia. Welcome to you. Try not to get too wrapped up in the politics behind the scenes, there are some people here for the drama rather than to build the encyclopedia and you don't want to wind up inadvertently playing their game. I do appreciate the sentiments, mind you, but I've learned that it's best not to feed the trolls by taking down their stuff from my talk page as fast as possible and refusing to engage with them.
That said, if there are any troubles you are having with the technical aspects of Wikipedia — how to footnote, how to upload graphics, copyright rules, what have you — please do not hesitate to ask. I see an explosion of activity in your edit history and that's good; people tend to make a few tentative edits and then to really dive in. I hope this describes you! Go get 'em, tiger.
Thanks. If you prefer to communicate by email, feel free: MutantPop@aol.com. —Tim. ///// Carrite (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the rescue flag(s) were put up correctly, I presume the software automatically places them on a list out there somewhere or other... As for the tables, those look pretty good, too. One thing you might want to play with is center justification, which involves using an initial justification parameter, whatever you want to call it, like this
ACTUAL ENTRY APPEARS HERE
This has to be done for each cell, as far as I am aware.
As for copy-paste, I don't have trouble if I open up the edit panel of page A, copy the needed material, and then paste it into the edit panel of page B. This has to be done very carefully though and in limited fashion, because mass pasting both tends to create content forks and is regarded as a copyright violation (since the edit history behind entry A is lost). More than a line or two here and there is apt to be a problem.
Hope this helps. Carrite (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 72 hours for continuing to make unfounded allegations of wikistalking. If you continue after the block expires I will revoke your editing rights permanently. Drop the stick and go do something else. I have to go out so happy for any admin to review this as appropriate but I couldn't not act when I saw the edit summary [1]. If you wish to contest the unlock you can use {{unblock|your reason here}} SpartazHumbug! 08:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
PS. I was edit conflicted here. I think an edit summary is hardly an allegation, I was citing the housing policy that WP:stalk links to. My rationale hardly a strech if you read that policy, or do you think that his avalanche of comments can not be found irritating or annoying? Also I am confused by this "I have to go out so happy for any admin to review this as appropriate but I couldn't not act when I saw the edit summary" It is very idiomatic, would you please phrase that more simply and directly so I can understand you better? Thank you in advance. In closing, I am not here to demonize anyone or beat anyone with a stick. Just edit.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me parse it: 1) the admin saw an improper edit summary, 2) they blocked, 3) another admin is welcome to change the block. And, nobody is accusing you of beating a person with a stick ... WP:DEADHORSE typically refers to beating a long-resolved situation with a stick. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Bang on Bwilkins, either you read my mind or its such an obvious wikipedia meme that everyone can get it? SpartazHumbug! 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly note, when placing the rescue tag template in articles, please place it within the AfD tag. Here's an example, from WP:RESCUETEMPLATE:
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{AfDM|page=Robin Sage|date=2007 September 11|substed=yes}}
{{Rescue}} (the rescue template goes here, within the AfD template)
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
Adding it within the two sets of <!-- --> tags allows the closing admin to automatically remove the tag when closing the AfD. Thanks! Northamerica1000(talk) 07:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"If an article meets GNG it must be kept as long as someone advocates for keep"
That's what you said about the short chick on the Richmond City Council, whose article needs to up and leave. To that I say: Nosir. That is not the case. Just because an article meets GNG doesn't mean an automatic keep if only one person votes yes Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is the case. If something meets the notability criteria then it can be added to wikipedia, the only other impetus is someone wanting to create it. And yes if one person votes yes but their argument is in line with policy it will be kept. It is not a democratic vote in that sense. If everyone voted delete I don't like those have little weight or none, but if one person shows that the article meets any notability criteria then it is kept.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your argument isn't in line with policy. Nor is your removing of notability and reliable source tags from an article of questionable notability that has no reliable sources Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if you think removal of references is disruptive, note that Sionk did it as well, and I explained on the article's talk page why I did it. If you think it's disruptive, why not start an ANI thread about it? You've done that before when you thought I crossed the line Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It is in line with policy and you are clearly unfamiliar with them, the perplexing assertions that paywalled articles are invalid you stated is proof of that. The article is not of questionable notability. All schools are notable. The school itself is a reliable source for information about the school itself. A book and the US government are also reliable sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'M the one who doesn't know about policy. Let the following facts be submitted:
You started an ANI thread about how the nominations themselves were disruptive. That was rebuked by many Wikipedia editors
"All schools are notable". See my comment at the school for why they aren't
"The school itself is a reliable source for information about the school itself". Primary sources are frowned upon in general, and most certainly can't be used to establish notability
"Removal of references is disruptive". Not if they're junk references that add absolutely nothing to the article, and a valid reason for removal is given in the edit summary or on the talk page
I could go on. But apparantly I'M the one who doesn't know anything. And since Sionk has agreed with me and done some of the same things, he doesn't either. So why aren't we at ANI? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What's your point with these ridiculous messages?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That the cut-and-paste messages you've been pasting on people's talk pages, including my own, are disruptive and one-sided Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
They are not disruptive in any way. They inform all editors both pro and con that there have been extensive changes to the article they should review, something that is very important in a deletion debate especially a contentious one. I personally find it disruptive that every edit I make you follow me and try to kill with unnecessary dialogue, but mostly I find you to be disingenuous in your rather overly confrontational approachLuciferWildCat (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the notice, and please don't take my comment as siding with another editor in the dispute between the two of you. I've participated in about 1000 AfD debates and side with consensus about 90% of the time. Established consensus is that secondary schools such as high schools enjoy a strong presumption of notability. On the other hand, the presumption is that primary schools are not notable, unless there is something unique about their architecture or history. Such schools should be redirected to a school district or archdiocese article, in my opinion. The fact that we have some articles about primary schools does not change the general consensus - many of them may not survive a deletion debate, and would end up as redirects. I recommend that you avoid personalizing such debates, and discuss each case on its merits. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh of course, I find it only fair that if an article begins to change, and as rescues go that can be substantial it is more conducive to the merits of that article for the votes to be reevaluated by their current state instead of wasting time with a potential deletion review or recreation and renomination for deletion which also wastes server space. Yes they do enjoy strong presumption of notability if they are a secondary school, but in most cases people find primary schools, especially junior highs to be notable too. Most of the one's that would merritt a redirect IMO are poorly written or ugly little stubs but this one is quite long and developed and I think more sources will be found here. Personalize how?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
My experience is that most primary school articles end up being redirected in AfD debates. By "personalizing", I was referring to your obvious and bitter dispute with the nominator. I do not think that the animosity belongs in an AfD debate, and I encourage you to disengage rather than escalating tensions. I would say the same to the other editor as well. Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not taking it personally. I just think it is important to note the mass nominating pattern.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
St. David School is a goner since it is K-8. Sorry about that. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you so sure, look at the category for those, there are thousands of them.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, like Jim says, it's a clear consensus. Once a school is taken to AFD, its about 98% that are redirected if they are elementary schools and 100% kept if they are secondary schools. The only exception seems to be if they are "blue ribbon schools," in which case some of the Schools Project members have a shitfit if they are redirected away. They usually lose the debates even then, but once in a while they prevail. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your note on my talk page about St. David School. I'm sorry to say I can't help you with sources about this school, since I don't find that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here. Sorry, I can tell you are passionate about this. But Wikipedia does need to have standards - and one of them is that we don't have an article about every elementary-middle school in the world, only those that are particularly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you anyway, I do think this school has a lot of coverage but old non internet newspaper coverage as there are a lot of articles framed on the wall about the school. But if it doesn't meet your interest based on your idea of inclusion so be it. I very much appreciate the response anyways and I have userized the article until I can find those sources. I am particularly passionate about it because I attended this school and in the past I saw people removed references to Mr. Lee but when I found a source for him I was very happy, but then I found that a user seemed to me to have followed me here and nominated it out of spite, that's how I feel. Have a great day and let me know if you ever need any help yourself, I love researching all kinds of topics especially the obscure and love the {{rescue}} process.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, Luciferwildcat. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 01:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. I'm curious about the statement you made. We have policies and guidelines that cover most things. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that you have made several similar assertions about blanket notability in Afd debates, including statements that 'all magazines and newspapers are notable' and 'All schools are notable'. While this may be your opinion, it is a position out of line with wikipedia policy. As such, similar claims are unlikely to help your arguments to save articles, and will probably draw continued comments from other editors. I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Notability and also the essay Wikipedia:Subjective importance which discusses the difference between an individual seeing something as notable and wikipedia's position on notability. If you have any questions, let me know. Dialectric (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I have seen people over the years innumerable amounts of times cite all schools are notable. I also see people vote to delete for reasons aside from policy. An antithical statement was made at Manchester Township Middle School for example that "we don't need an article" on any school. These sorts of comments are common. My position however is that every school does have significant coverage but may be hard to get together, but citing NRVE that should not matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
"we don't need an article" is of course as inadmissible per WP:ATA, as sweeping statements that all schools are notable. neither !votes are likely to be taken into consideration by the closing admin. What counts at AfD are votes based on policy, guidelines, or established precedent. Those are the criteria that are exercised here 'over the years', rather than pure personal feelings. I've been around here rather longer than you have, and have examined the notability situation for schools in particular in great depth over the years, and know of no such policy, guidelines, or established precedent that states that 'all schools are notable'. I suggest you read WP:ATA, while bearing in mind that there is a clear consensus based on long standing precedent and 1,000s of AfD closures, that high schools are generally considered notable, while others are not, but rather than deleting them, standard practice is to redirect them to the article about the school district (USA) or their locality (rest of the world). Please see WP:WPSCH/AG and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. If you think the current practice no longer accurately reflects today's requirements or objectives for inclusion/deletion, you are most welcome to join this current discussion on the topic.If as a result, consensus is changed, then we'll all follow it.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Not true. If you can give a reason why you're removing them, either on the talk page or in the edit summary, it isn't vandalism. Also, 3RR isn't in play here, as the edits have to be in a 24-hour period Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It has to be for a bona fide reason, you can't just sidestep the rule by writing in "I don't think so" or "it got's to go" and your logic is flawed. Enough already, it's a lost cause dude.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to have an article, we might as well have one that isn't full of a lot of useless references... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Not useless. NRVE applies here. If you want prettier references, improve them.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
3RR is a bright line rule, but slow motion edit warring is also edit warring and is also bad conduct. The issue should be discussed on the article's talk page, to gain consensus among more than two editors who can't agree. Cullen328Let's discuss it 16:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, you don't use a rescue tag if an article is tagged for MERGER. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
When read thoroughly the guidelines show that the its not just for AfDs. Considering the recent trend I would rather be on the safer side and improve the content. Which would benefit a non-merger or a merger.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I just read them at WP:RESCUE, actually, and it says pretty much that they are only for AfDs or PRODs. There is a section on "when not to use a rescue tag", and the first reason is: "[Do not use it for]Articles that are not in the AfD process, including articles that have been deleted". That article isn't being AfDed or PRODded. Therefore, it shouldn't be tagged as rescue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for the bluntness, but is your intention here to make contributions that people listen to that make a real difference to a discussion or do you prefer the current state of play where your arguments are often discounted and your views marginalised when an admin is closing a discussion? I'm asking because you are currently wasting your time making non-policy based arguments and assertions and could become a lot more influential by adapting the way that you approach your comments in discussion. If you are interested in discussing this, please drop a note on my talk page. SpartazHumbug! 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to echo the remarks that Spartaz made. This project succeeds only when there is collaboration and consensus. Over ten years of work have created something marvelous, and we are charged with making it better. There is no need for AfD debates to descend into bitter disputes, and plenty of opportunities to improve and expand articles on notable topics of interest to you. Take some time to better learn how things happen here, and please take it easy. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice from both of you, I really do, but influence is not what I seek. I just want to edit and improve. From the various discussions all over I will try to keep it down, and tone it down. I realize that if someone is poking me its hard not to poke back but through a monitor its actually very easy and I'll just let other people have the last word from now. I am curious as to what you meant by adapting my approach, I think improving my communication to this sociolect could always lead to improvement. I'll just focus on improvement from now on and disengage from any combativeness.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please be sure to see my response to you at WP:3RRNB regarding your report on Purplebackpack, which I declined. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean County Sheriff's Department until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Tinton5 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. I found coverage of them for some of their activities. Need to list some information about them on the article page, since its nothing but one sentence right now. How many officers do they have, what awards have they received, any scandals involving them, what activities such as the charity bit and community programs I found do they do, etc. DreamFocus 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sure they do, as I thought it would be an uncontested item I thought I would start it with but a sentence as many articles have been started and others would fill it in a bit. I was going to add more as I went along. I have never seen a police department or sheriff's office that did not have tons and years of sources so I doubted the notability would have been needed to be established beyond that. Thanks for looking into it man.LuciferWildCat (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Corn Pops, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BHT (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) 10:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
