User talk:Luciferwildcat

Hola

Sup, y'all?Luciferwildcat (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

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)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abusive_mass_nominations_for_deletion_and_wikistalking_of_opponents_to_deletion

You need to substantiate your claims or withdraw them as it is not acceptable to cast unfounded aspirations with regard to other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 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)

If you insist...

−	Lump-o-coal Award
	Ho, ho, NO! Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See, no hard feelings. Have a nice day.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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)

Hi, friend

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)

Your queries

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

|-

| align="center" | 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)