Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Lugnuts

 __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:  procedural close. The nominator does not argue that this user talk page as a whole should be deleted, but rather that a banner at the top of the talk page should be removed. That may well be the case, but this is not the right location for a discussion on that matter—consider WP:ANI instead. Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Lugnuts

 * – (View MfD)

This material:

violates WP:POLEMIC:


 * Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).


 * Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously a WP:POINTY/disruptive nom, following |this and this. User doesn't want to discuss accessiblily issues for disabled editors, so resorts to this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This statement from Lugnuts is pure b.s., since I've been inclined to nom his vicious talk page headers for a while now. As to the other, there is no dissbled viewer issue, and I ask him to stop hiding behind that false front.  There is only an MOS-absolutist, as usual treating MOS as if it was policy.  If he wants it to be policy, he should start an RfC, until then, it is merely a guideline, and edit warring to enforce a guideline is dead wrong.In any case, Lugnuts should not be allowed to deflect from the issue at hand, these are polemical statements directed at other Wikipedia editors, and they should be removed.  They are objectionable, and detrimental to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * They are links to songs/albums I happen to like. Nothing more. Polemical statements would be, for example, having "Warning: Don't post here..." on a user's talkpage.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Warning: Don't post here here, you won't like me" on my talk page is a freakin' joke at my own expense. On the other hand, your song/album titles, without context and formatted as they are (with "Attention Scum" at the top in a larger font), just happen to say to the user who comes to your talk page: "You are scum. You are nothing. You are deluded. You are shit." The implication, of course, being that you are none of those things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A variation of that has existed for at least four years when you posted on my talkpage. Funny how you only have a problem with it now. BMK simply doesn't like people adhering to the MOS to a page, and then resorts to childish things like this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took note of it then, and almost nominated it here, but for one reason or another decided not to. You want to make a case that this nomination is not valid because I didn't nominate it at an earlier time? What's your policy-based theory on editors being required to nominate stuff for deletion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your nomination isn't valid, as it's a childish, poiny nom, because you don't like someone editing an article, or engaging in a discussion about that.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, my nomination is valid because you intend to make visitors to your talk page feel inferior to you, which violates WP:POLEMIC, even if I ate pork chops for dinner last night or forgot to brush my teeth this morning. You're simply trying to deflect attention from the straight-forward fact of the matter, because you know that's why you put them there. My little "Warning" is a joke on me, your bolded titles, which look like eclarative statements, are a joke deameaning others. Look at them up there at the top of this page: "You will sit there, and you will take it ", maggot, "and you will like it ."  Disgusting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "maggot" anywhere in the lyric.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why the quotes STOP before "maggot" and pick up again AFTER "maggot". Try reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So only you think it refers to maggot. Disgusting.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. It's always disheartening when one comes across a person who has so little comprehension of common modern English-language tropes.What's "disgusting" here is not the metaphorical use of "maggot" as, say, a Marine Drill Sergeant might refer to a Marine in training ("Drop and give me a hundred, maggot!"), but your attitude towards other editors who come to your talk page to communicate with you, that's disgusting. "Scum", you call them, your page is littered with big red "Stop" hands. "My way or the highway" they say to the visitor. (Just in case you're confused, that's my gloss on the attitude you're projecting, not a quote from your page -- see, that's called "writing".  Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

*Comment There's obviously some history between the two of you here that I'm not privy to nor wish to research but can I please ask what point your rather divisive talk header is proving? Is it positively contributing to the encyclopedia? Personally I find it completely unnecessary and whilst I'm not sure this is the best avenue for this conversation I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. This may be best for ANI. Glen 14:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC) In hindsight I'd rather not get involved in whatever "this" is. Leave you two to battle it out but it's not going to end well... Glen 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is exactly what it appears to be, the nomination of disturbing material on a user page for deletion. It is not the various things that Lugnuts characterizes it as, in an effort to defelect attention away from the nature of the nominated material.  He has no argument to support keeping the material, so he attacks me instead, that's hardly an unusual tactic used by people in his position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not a huge fan of the header, but this is the wrong forum since we don't delete user talk pages. The OP is well aware that this is a matter for ANI, not MFD. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.