User talk:Lugnuts

Lugnuts' contributions to Wikipedia are an INSULT to 4.54 billion years of evolution.

— Professor Brian Cox

Userpage deletion

Afternoon.

Your userpage is over the limit for mere administrators to delete due to its revision size. You'll need to contact a steward if you wish for it to be deleted. I've left the tag there in case any wandering admins also have the steward permission (theres a couple) Amortias (T)(C) 15:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Merry

I know you'll likely simply remove this, which is obviously fine--but I wanted to stop by just to wish you a happy holiday season. All the best to you and yours, and may 2022 be better for us all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely, Wikipedia's the global cricketing community. Please come back at some point! 2405:6E00:B7A:3A00:84F7:D7DD:2FA6:90C5 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts

Hello, Lugnuts,

Apparently, there are so many thousands of edits to your User page that it has to be deleted by a steward. I tried but couldn't delete the page. You might contact a steward directly if you are set on deleting it. Also, be aware that if you want to restore the page in the future, it will be equally challenging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to see it

I'm sorry to see this. I'd hoped you'd stay and be productive, as you clearly can be, and that you'd maybe even find that the proposed restrictions might be good for you in many ways. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Disgrace

Just seen that ANI, what an absolute fucking disgrace, absolute shite chatted by people who never contribute to the cricket project. Your stubs are important starting points, with which many of us, myself included, have expanded to good quality B-Class articles. Knobheads everywhere. StickyWicket (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. While Lugnuts might ve at sone fault here, the accusations at te ANI were ruthless. Wikipedia is like Twitter nowadays. Filled with a-words. Most of them probably never heard of cricket. Truly a loss for the cricket community here. Human (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mm. Well. Just editing from the cheap seats here, but this is Wikipedia, not Cricketpedia. Little as you folks might approve, being a cricket fan is neither a prerequisite for participating on this encyclopedia or any area within it, nor a get-out-of-jail-free card for giving two fingers to its policies or guidelines, nor the paramount focus of Wikipedia. Lugnuts has a long record (and a block log to match the same) of edit warring, incivility and disruptive editing. He's been up at ANI more than once for it, and canvassed to try to get his way more than once. He avoided sanctions after the last long ANI complaint in April by promising to change his ways. He broke his word the very next damn day, and kept on doing so. And instead of admitting that he screwed up and taking his medicine at ANI this time, he kept on lashing out, to the point where eighteen editors -- and that's HUGE at ANI -- agreed he needed to be sanctioned for it.

  And listen to you folks. Instead of reining him in -- and, y'know, maybe following the traditions of cricket which call for good sportsmanship, dignity, fair play and respecting the rules -- you're complaining that the umpire suggested he clean up his own mess and sent him off the pitch. This is your way of advocating for your sport? Ravenswing 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lugnuts had simply refused to engage at all with any of the people trying to clean up his articles, and instead just subjected them to pointless incivility and engaged in canvassing in order to try to stop anyone doing anything about them.

A bit of sledging I can put up with, but you want us to ignore the Wiki equivalent of ball-tampering and body-line bowling? Sorry, not going to happen. FOARP (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's crazy that you need to follow tons of policies just to edit for nothing in return. Why do anonymous ids edit then? Human (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Don't make up conspiracies against you, slag people off, and try to unfairly load discussions in your favour. Listen when people tell you stuff." are not hard rules to follow. Lugnuts was blocked 10 times in 11 years and up before ANI a dozen times besides that. The April ANI made it clear to him what he had to do - and that he was avoiding stronger sanctions by agreeing to do it - but he didn't follow through. Do you really think the guy hadn't been given enough chances? I don't even know anyone who has ever gotten that many blocks because normally they would have been blocked indefinitely at some point before they got to 10.

I'm going to stop posting here because these discussion is starting to feel like WP:GRAVEDANCING and I don't want that, but you guys clearly wanted this explaining to you so I've done that. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanction : prohibition from creating stubs

Per this discussion, you are indefinitely banned from creating new articles that contain less than 500 words when created. This includes converting redirects. You may appeal after six months. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't retire, I value your continued contributions. Deb (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)