Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucia Black/Link Bank

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was deleted by TParis. --v/r - TP 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lucia Black/Link Bank


Violation of WP:UP. Enemies list that serves no legitimate purpose and will not be (and was not) used in a timely manner for an RfC or for AN/I. Huon (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it will be. This is the only way i can keep track of it all. either way, its my personal space and its used to be used when its needed. Huon, i already gave you an answer to this, and you've dropped it since then.


 * This isn't a list of enemies. this is a list of incidents that will allow me to prove long-lasting disruption in ANI. As its been said, if you have serious accusations, you need serious proof. So when the time comes when an editor makes a significant ammount of issues, it will be brought up.


 * Funny how you only bring this up when Chrisgualtieri is involved. You dropped it last time when i decided to make peace with him, and you brought it back again when his edits were deemed relevant by me again.


 * so yes this will be brought up in a "timely manner". IN fact, if theres no other way of keeping track of issues, i suggest every editor do so to prove such problematic behaviour if it becomes long lasting, and you can see in each link, the ammount of time in when someone becomes problematic sin't even a month away. But i'm already saving this information in another site, if you plan on removing it here. which both still serve a purpose.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UP. "Timely" means more like a week.  Keeping notes like this can be helpful.  Can be cathartic.  But keep them offline.  Or somewhere else that is private.  Your unhappy thoughts and drafts do not belong in public.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * COmment the definition does not mean "weekly" although you might prefer it to. Either way, these aren't my thoughts. these are my "records".Lucia Black (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They represent your thoughts on what are significant records. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But records nonetheless. and if you take alook at each one individually, you can see for yourself, anyone would deem the relevant to record. this has been going on a year, and i'm not going to go in ANI again without heavy proof.Lucia Black (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Very good.  But keep them recorded privately, unless you are about refer to them in WP:DR, imminently.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact i am. I've been addding in formation. and i do remove them if long term. Meaning, if the problems seize, then i do remove them. however if it returns, then the history returns along with it. basically, it becomes timely.Lucia Black (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris. WP:BOOMERANG. you're the subject here. all the info is still here. you don't look like a saint. so its best you not get involved and save yourself the humiliation.Lucia Black (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - User is publicly admitting to backing this up on "another site" and has waved this "naughty list" of perceived slights for months. Despite being the subject of the list in question, it should be made clear that my frustration is with the WP:RANDY behavior. I don't have time to deal with editors who misrepresent official sources as "fanbooks" and can't understand why a cited quote, with an inline citation, with an additional note to a prominent scholar should not be cited. With the section appearing like this at the time that comment was made. With every sentence cited and attributed to its commentator and complete with a contextual quote on an altered line and a full quote from Orbaugh. Such comments after an announcement of an intention to have the GAN fail for "stability" combined makes me rather upset. That, and the alteration of comment already replied to by supplying a reason for an objection in the very post which announced that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, i saved in a site not because i want toa dvertise it, but i dont have a wordpad, or a form of memo in my phone, so i have to save it in a site that lets me have quick easy copy and paste when i do have to reveal, and even though. i still have enough room to put this on ANI right now. i do delete certain info if its not done in a timely manner. so if you don't give me trouble for a long period of time, i do end up deleting the info. but not truly deleted.Lucia Black (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Violation of WP:POLEMIC. She's used it to threaten me on my talk page to win her argument as well, as if this list were something to fear - not exactly constructive either. Our argument was almost a month ago, and the other person's info started about 2 months ago, so also not timely. (The only reason I didn't nominate it for deletion myself is that the difs she provides are so bad, they'd probably just be thrown out at ANI anyways...) Sergecross73   msg me   16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete clear violation of WP:POLEMIC and actually serves to show that Lucia is actually the more problematic user, not the 2 persons listed. If given this list of links on ANI or an RFC/U, I would be calling WP:BOOMERANG  ES  &#38;L  17:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, she did just post it at ANI today, and the term boomerang is being thrown around, so there's definitely merit to that comment. Sergecross73   msg me   19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

DOnt even try to excuse yourselves with making these empty claims. WP:BOOMERANG is being thrown like a sack of potatoes. its nothing but empty claims. read WP:POLEMIC justify how its not used properly, and i'll counter it or at least justify the reasoning behind it. if you all believe its against WP:POLEMIC, fine. but be prepared to know that WP:POLEMIC does a poor job conveying what is valid. and in my eyes this was valid. you don't think so? its an entirely subjective process. Lucia Black (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I merely made a comment connecting what one person said would happen, to what was actually happening - that they were one in the same. Backing a "hypothetical" with an "example". That's all. Sergecross73   msg me   20:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AS long as you're not implying anything that i hae already confirmed false. regardless, again i already saved the information and wikipedia doesn't stop me from keeping records outside of it. although it doesn't stop me here either as long as everyone agrees its appropriate with the word "timely". either way: i also vote Delete.Lucia Black (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POLEMIC ..... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  06:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)