User talk:Legacypac

Re Arbitration//Case/GiantSnowman

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

About the involved parties; wouldn't UninvitedCompany and Valenciano be considered important parties to add? I don't know, but both did participate. Would you say this should be the case? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, UninvitedCompany started the original ANI discussion on GiantSnowman and nevermind on Valenciano. I mixed them up with Veryproicelandic. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Uninvited company noticed the inappropriate behavior and brought it to ANi. That does not make them a party, more a whistle blower. The other party is a victim. Hopefully there will be a desysop here because, while I don't think GS meant to do harm, he is clearly unable to understand how to use rollback appropriately, when to block, and how to treat good faith contributors. Had any non-Admin been doing what he has been doing they would be blocked/sanctioned long ago. WP:CIR amd even more so for Admins. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Larry Evans

Chess player biographies are usually disambiguated using "(chess player)" rather than "(chess grandmaster)". You can see several examples in Category:American chess players. Quale (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes but there are two notable American chess players with the name. See lead of Larry Evans (chess grandmaster). The other one does not yet have a page but should. Legacypac (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of Larry D. Evans, but he doesn't have an article so it isn't clear that he is notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's also unnecessary to disambiguate because there is no other article. In the chess world in contexts in which there might be confusion, the second Evans is called "Larry D. Evans". What do you plan to do if Larry D. Evans earns the GM title? Quale (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Whatever I don't care. I was just trying to improve the situation when a third Larry Evans page was created. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Legacypac. A question: at the disambiguation page Larry Evans, you added Larry David Evans which is a redlink. Are you intending to write an article about this person? If not, or not any time soon, we should remove it from the DAB unless/until there is an article. See WP:DABSTYLE. Pinging User:Bill-on-the-Hill and User:Quale with the same question. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just setting up the DAB, i will not be writing up a page on the person. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Oberlin Academy Prepatory School

I was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find this article - which I declined late last night - in the accepted list. Checking the history, I then saw it'd been resubmitted and declined again by another editor overnight before being accepted by you. I'm never going to second-guess another RfC reviewer's call (someone has to make decisions on these ones that sit there), but I really think sends a bad message when this kind of rapid-fire-resubmission in response to a decline of a draft results in a third reviewer approving their article without changes. This is really not something we want to see become a nominator habit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I watch User:FloridaArmy's talkpage for pages that get declined. Reviewers make calls that are mistakes or debatable. The creator has countless approved articles and a very good handle on what will pass AfD/is notable. I've approved many of those pages amd never lost one at AfD yet. He tackles somewhat obscure old topics like this school that closed more than 100 years ago. There is no promotional or other benefit to anyone in covering the topic other than recording history. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I think it's best to stick to the facts and policies. I would be shocked if this highly notable historic institution was deleted. I know things get frustrating and I agree your comment was misrepresented, but take the high road. Don't give any ammunition to critics. Please consider redacting anything not related to the article content and policies. Many editors rely on your help and you are very much appreciated and needed. Keep things fun and rewarding for yourself as best you can. Cheers. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:pb

The paragraph break template might come in handy at places like the AfD. Thought I would point it out for you in case you weren't already aware. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks

I've removed the personal attacks against you from Talk:2004 in Portuguese television. I recommend filing an SPI if you have not already done so. Cheers. Bradv🍁 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Socking

I’ve semi protected this page for a week because it’s had a lot of socking. Surely not your fault. Let me know if you object. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin needed

Please unprotect Rome Douglas and move Rome Douglas (American football) there. Obviously notable and no DAB needed. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Freefall

Interesting. That draft is meta-crystal balling. A future science fiction book is a meta-crystal ball, because it is merely crystal balling about a book that may or may not be written about a future that may or may not happen. Of course, writing about the future, science fiction, is an honorable genre, but pre-announcing future works is common in the film industry, and in the software industry, where they are known as vaporware. I agree that an unpublished book is not notable and is promotional. But I find it amusing that it is crystal balling about a crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you have been subjected to personal attacks by suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ya not my kind of book but anyway it needs to be published and reviewed to be notable. The sock attacks me regularly. No creativity, very lame. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What's

the notability of David Bone? CBE does not propel someone to auto-notability and is awarded to about a hundred every year. 90, 279 Coronation Medals were awarded in total. BookDepository.com does not quality as a RS in book-review. AFAIK, son of a prominent newspaper publisher or brother of an artist or a friend of a notable person or serving in the navy does not contribute an iota to notability either.............I manage to spot a sole review of him by Morseley.∯WBG^converse 11:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the accomplishments you've noted, the article's very first paragraph cites Arnold Bennett's Literary Taste: How to Form It. A Google Book search turns up other sources but not all pf them are freely availavle online. One credits one of the author's books as the locus classicus of the term brassbounder. Others cover his relation and travels with Joseph Conrad. The newspaper article cited goes into quite a bit of detail. Keeping in mind that the internet wasn't widely available in the early 20th century, what sources there are seem to do a great job of establishing the author's notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Order of the British Empire is a major award and a very good hint that the Queen and thouse who make recommendations for the Order found him to be a notable author. A CBE is even two grades above the MBE the The Beatles received. Saying only 100 a year are awarded accross all perfessions only adds to the credibility of why it strongly suggests notability. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are non-notable accomplishments. That you fail to realize it and deem it to be a great job was what got you banned in the first place.

Having a book in a notable list does not make the author notable. Ridiculous. Mention in a sailing-dictionary as the locus classicus of a word is hardly any indicator pf notability, either.

Rambling about a Google search is not a good idea. You need to provide those sources. Which newspaper article did you cite, by the way?

Please provide more sources within a week or I will dispatch it for AfD. And at any case,, I will be taking a systematic review of all the AfC accepts of your drafts. ∯WBG^converse 18:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is WBG that needs to study up on what makes a person notable on Wikipedia and stop taking other people's decisions as a personal attack against them. There are probably a million bios on Wikipedia where the subject is less notable then this long dead author. I approved a 17 year old youtuber yesterday because he has a million 8 millionplus subscribers and some coverage in press even though I find the idea that a 17 year old talking to camera can possibly be notable but then, he would survive an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, well, we'll see at the AFD of this subject (absent any noticeable improvement).

The auto-notability factor of MBE et al have been pretty well-discussed; already. And, I am not any interested in the linking with the 17 year old youtuber in light of that other crap exists.

Also, please provide diffs for your blatant aspersion that I am taking other peoples' decisions as PAs on me or withdraw and apologize.

Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 19:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, can you please link the article 'bout the you-tuber? ∯WBG^converse 19:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I base that on your presence on my talkpage disputing my acceptance of the page after you did not accept it. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

After you did not accept it-Accept what? Assuming that I am sane, I don't recall coming across this page aprior and neither does the revision history show anything linked. Clarify, please. ∯WBG^converse 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused - I apologize and will strike. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric: Morgz (if anyone is interested, has been deleted a couple times at Morgan Hudson). CoolSkittle (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacy: Does this AfD discussion and the current salting of Morgan Hudson change your thinking on Morgz at all? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk)

That discussion was 4 September 2017 which is forever ago in Youtube time. Some of the deletions are obviously not related to this kid. Obviously Morgz is the common name. I don't like that a kid creating that kind of content is more than 50% likely to survive AfD but I have to review based on that standard. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac I ended up nominating it for deletion but in my reviewing of the sources out there, I definitely do agree with you that his profile and possible notability has changed since that last AfD and so a fresh discussion is needed. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Tubefilter considered a reliable source? I'm.seeing a lot of coverage from them. Apparently he's part.of some sort of first of its kind tour etc.. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

According to their article they have been cited by many traditional publications. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

An arbitration case regarding GiantSnowman has now closed, and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors. GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:

1. He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction
2. He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
3. He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
4. He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
5. He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
6. He may not use MassRollback.js

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

An apology

from me to you, Legacypac, for my rudeness to you a couple of weeks ago. I was in a bad place—major operation for the wife—and frankly shouldn't have been editing; I realised that, and stopped for a couple of weeks. I hope you can see your way to accepting my apology, and we can resume "normal" relations  ;) take care! ——SerialNumber54129 14:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We all have bad days. I hope your wife gets better quickly. You are a very good editor. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Well, you get half  :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Have another for User:BHalquist58/Brian Halquist Productions Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, I see you redirected an old draft article in my user space. Is there a policy that applies to doing that? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES applies. I was working a maintenance cat of stale userspace pages. You can unredirect anytime. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:02:49, 14 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Alexiacanvas

• Alexiacanvas (talk · contribs)
  • User:Alexiacanvas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I have uploaded a Wikipedia entry twice for review, and both times it has been declined due to copyright reasons. I have written it and re-written it in different styles, however because of the nature of the entry (ie., it is a lot of official titles and names people and of institutions) I am not able to actually change too much of the content because then the content would become incorrect. I have also been cautious to cite throughout, and make sure that everything is supported by a reference.

You reviewed my last submission, so I was wondering whether you could tell me which parts in particular you'd need me to change? I know that this is probably a very annoying request - sorry! The entry is for my boss, who is very keen to get it up and live and I really don't want to disappoint.

I hope you're having a great day :)

Dave Alexiacanvas (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your feedback on those references. I've added new ones as you suggested – do let me know if there is anything further that I can do here :)

Alexiacanvas (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Alexiacanvas (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

City Express Money Transfer

Dear Legacypac, Yes! there are two same articles; one is in my sandbox and another is in draft. You can delete any one of them.

Also, kindly approve my article. Because I have done everything for this article. I do not have COI issues and I have provided more than enough references. Please kindly trust me that this subject of mine is very notable in Nepal. It falls under the top three remittance companies. If you don't believe me than you can check by googling. Please approve my article. I have neither exaggerated nor undermined the subject. I have only re-written what the references have mentioned. Although I have done everything right, no one is interested in approving my side. My article will be beneficial for Wikipedia. Some internet users may search for this organization in Wikipedia. You may get some more traffic to Wikipedia site by having my article approved.

Thank you, Your suraj (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope it gets kept. You can comment at the deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mayor of Jacksonville

It turns out the mayor of Jacksonville.is in fsct the mayor of the county as a result of consolidation. I suspect this was done to bring in enough white suburban and outlying voters to outnumber the African American population's voting strength, but I haven't looked into it on detail. Anyway, I think you were technically correct on the statement made in Betty Holzendorf, but I think mayor of Jacksonville remains the more common phrasing. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Awe, I found the County election page and did not look deeper. I agree the City is more famous. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspicion of Notability- City Express Money Transfer

Dear Legacypac, My subject is very much notable in Nepal. Not only Nepal, they have branches in Middle east, Japan, Korea, Australia and some more. Please approve my article. There shouldn't be any notability issue about this. If you also were a Nepali, you would know. Thank you. Your suraj (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to look into what I can do to improve it. The page is under deletion discussion right now. You should commebt there. See link on the draft. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested

I know a number of Admins watch this page so this is a better place to get help than ANi. I have a very hard fought for IBAN in place I sought to stop stalking. It is logged on the restrictions page. Over the last two days my watchlist shows this IBAN is now being ignored [1]. I've been followed to 11 pages so far, all abandened userpages I recently moved to Draft because they had some potential. The only logical way to find such obscure pages is to check my logs. Could someone please check this out and take appropriate action. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is handy for seeing who's been recently active, from which you can pick a favorite  :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ivanvector for resolving this. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with mistake

Hello and thx for unprotecting Languages of North Macedonia. Thing is, and I'm sorry I moved it but forgot the "the" in there. Very stupid. I don't know how to fix it. HERE Thank you for the help.--APG1984 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Easy slip. I've asked for the correct title to be deleted so the page can be moved over the redirect. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

thx!--APG1984 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft submission help

Hello! I'm writing to you because you recently helped me improve the article about Molecular Layer Deposition for submission. I have already made the changes you suggested, but now I see that the box with the button to submit the draft is gone. What should I do now? Is it alreaddy submitted?

References

New infobox

I'm making the infobox "infobox internet meme". What are your thoughts on it?Submarine112 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about memes Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Submarine112, ask WT:WikiProject Internet culture. They cover that sort of stuff. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

National tree of Turkey

Hi, I see you've created National tree of Turkey. Is there such a thing at all? A web search doesn't seem to come up with anything. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to an IP that made a series of correct redirect requests. However now there is some issue with the IP. This one may not be correct and is not mentioned at the target so I tagged A7. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I've been trying to clean up after that IP, it's a sock of Zeshan Mahmood, who's been very persistent in creating articles or redirects about all manner of national birds/flowers/what-not of countries (or about subdivisions of Pakistan); sometimes these are legitimate, often they are not. If you see an AFC/R request (or a draft) in this area created by an IP that geolocates to the Greater Manchester area, then it's very likely be him. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look at the redirects created by this IP, and I've tagged the following for G5 deletion:

• National weaponry of Pakistan
• National Epic of Pakistan
• National document of Pakistan

I won't object if you recreate any that seem appropriate. On an unrelated note, I've started Wikipedia talk:User pages#Moving non-AfC userpace drafts to the Draft namespace?. It was to a large extent prompted by some of your recent activities. I didn't come to you first because I think I know what your view is and I wanted to hear other people's opinions too. – Uanfala (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of moving a topic with potential to Draft space is to expose it to more editors so it hopefully will be improved and mainspaced as a stand alone topic or part of another topic. That you noticed these pages is great because now you and other editors can improve them. A major benefit to a properly titled Draft over a page like User:Example/insert_you_title_here is discoverability. If someone tried to start missing topic Foo in mainspace they will now be informed that Draft:Foo already exists, giving them something to build on. I look forward to seeing what you can do with some of these promising topics Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be totally on board with you if G13 didn't exist. Things on wikipedia happen at a much, much slower pace than the one presupposed there; the average time that it takes for someone to notice and do something about such obscure topics is way more thank six months. – Uanfala (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

G13 is a womderful thing as it clears out all the half baked ideas and abandoned junk. Leaving the obscure topic in even more obscure userspace will not help it develop any faster. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference...

...have a look at this, I've included an explanation and some links to some useful tools for sorting the backlog, if you weren't aware of them already. I wouldn't take the comment in the nomination to heart; in fact I think it sails quite close to the wind. Take care, SITH (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I was pretty harsh in response to the nomination. Naybe they were having a bad day because they usually do good work. . Nice explanation and thanks for sharing the tools and search ideas. I've used keywords to find blockchain spam but "renowned" and the like are good ways to find spam about people. I'm going to use that. Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work helping Your suraj with City Express Money Transfer. Your kindest and consideration is much noticed and appreciated! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 17:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Kaveh Afagh

Hi dear Kng, I have not created this Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveh_Afagh

Kaveh Afag had my Wikipedia account and my email hacked. And the things written here are not true. He is not an actor. Not a famous singer. He is a normal singer in Iran. Even all links are also Persian and there is no English link. How could it be approved? Please checked this subject & remove it. Thanks a lot King regardsSahar410 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not approve that page. We have WP:AFD if you want to delete the page. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sahar410 did create the page? Hmm... CoolSkittle (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I get it now. Sahar410, if your account was supposedly hacked by this person, please read m:Help:Compromised accounts. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

In the Bo's

It looks as if you are in a dustbin at Bo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL. I keep finding your work on the list. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:BilCat/Sandbox/Bell L-39

Just curious, but why did you submit a userspace draft for AFC without the user's (in this case, my) permission? Btw, the AFC was denied, and it should have been, because the draft wasn't completed. If you'd like to work on it, that fine, I have kind no issue with that, and would have moved it to draftspace for you to work on it some more. a - BilCat (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Long forgotten page on a good notable topic. Looks ready for mainspace and cooperative editing but turns out it duplicates Bell P-63 Kingcobra so it is an WP:UP#COPY Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just curious. I used text from Bell P-63 Kingcobra to start the draft, and would have of course removed the duplicate text from the P-63 article if it ever went live, basically a split. I still intend to work on it to add more information, but haven't so far. Because of the duplicated text, it's probably not suitable on draftspace, but as a reason for rejection of the AFC, I would have taken care of that. I agree its a unique aircraft that deserves its own article. Hopefully some day soon. - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Working on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts in the B's. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I realized I have a lot of stale drafts in my userspace, so have nommed most of them for CSD. Most were created in the hopes of finding more sources, which never happened. I kept the few I thought I could make work. - BilCat (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, this was just discussed last week. It is not OK to be moving other people's userspace pages like that. I think you should stop doing that. What you can do, is put up a proposal for a certain threshold of editor inactivity beyond which it would be allowed to draftify their userpace pages. This has a fair chance of passing. This is probably your best way forward if you'd like to continue with that type of activity. – Uanfala (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You have brought this up several times and been told that your opinion is not supported by policy, project instructions or precedent. 99.9% of pages so handled are from long inactive editors anyway. This one was an anomaly and the active editor has handled the page. Legacypac (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Sending_all_userspace_drafts_to_AfC? and Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_non-AfC_userpace_drafts_to_the_Draft_namespace?. – Uanfala (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Rather than armchair quarterbacking what other editors do with pages that have not been worked onsince at least Nov 2015 and often much longer, can I suggest you try some cleanup yourself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. I expect it will be more satisfying. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect/ Speedy Redirect/ Move..?

Hi! Can you explain some of these terms to me? I'm afraid I've been too quick recommending delete and should be dealing with these pages in other ways. Can you possibly explain how I would use these maneuvers, and what they do? SKay (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure happy to help you. I see you are working on the same project I am which is great. It's easier then you are making it. Very rarely do we need to go to WP:MfD to delete abandoned userpages. If the page is hopeless and the user did very little on the site use WP:CSD#U5. If promotional use G11. If the page duplicates an existing topic just redirect the page at that topic.  ::If you can find a good spot for the info like on the aquarium page then you can just #REDIRECT [[Target]] on the userpage with the place you added the info. In that case the name of the aquarium was not in mainspace so I moved the page to mainspace to create a page at the name of the aquarium and then redirected it to the part of the town page that you created. Does that make sense? I see you already learned to remove pages you actioned from the list which is awesome.

Do you have Twinkle enabled in your preferances? You can also turn on seeing how many edits an editor has in your preferences. It is really helpful to know an acct only made three edits or whatever when deciding how to handle a page or someone's edits. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Silencers

I know. I know. It wasn't worth reviewing anyway, but I did disambiguate it separately from the other bands. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved it and found there was already one. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

You really should stop now. I'm not going to link to the discussions again (I've already linked above, and you were a participant anyway), but submitting a userspace draft to AfC and then declining is not acceptable. You must also be aware of the current guidelines (WP:STALE), as you tried to change them yesterday. I take it that you realise that what you're doing is not OK.

Again, if you propose a change to the guidilines to the effect that userpace pages created by users who haven't edited in a certain period of time can be submitted to AfC, or draftified, then I think there's a fair chance this might pass and then you can contiunue to do some of what you're currently doing without crossing any lines. – Uanfala (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines already fully support working through abandoned pages. I strongly suggest you read WP:STALE again before commenting on my editing again. You are now being a pest who either does not know what the guidelines say or is deliberately lying about my activity. My activity is well within guidelines, which include using AfC tools to look for copyvio, prior deletions, existing pages in mainspace, dab issues etc. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) There isn't a rule against it as far as I know, but best practice in many professions is (applied to this case) you let someone else review your own submissions. I know these aren't really your submissions, but wouldn't it just make everything more clean (i.e. you wouldn't have random editors breathing down your neck all the time) if you submitted and left it for someone else to review, or vice-versa? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, following on from our exchange last month, it's clear that you're moving articles to mainspace that don't belong there. A recent example is Draft:Arnold Dohmen, a machine translation (now moved back by Onel5969) that was of the examples of problematic work raised during the creator's unsuccessful RfA. For example: "Dohmen seemed to have made pseudo-medical experiments of his intention to carry out pseudo-medical experiments on concentration camp inmates, according to Gutzeit initially again taken distance ..."

Please take Ivanvector's advice and let another editor do the review when you submit drafts you haven't written. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin One page on a notable topic about a dead Nazi doctor with some awkward wording that can easily be fixed does not rise to a problem on my part or a reason to restrict me. I'm sure I can nitpick and find problems with pages you touch too. That was a bad draftification of a page that would pass AfD any day easily. I'm one of the most prolific AfC reviewers and there is no difference in my ability to correctly review a page I encounter in STALE userspace or one I encounter because some new editor submits it.

There is also a GEOLAND stub page that the same user draftified with two refs and a big box suggesting the page can be expanded from an extensive page well built page in Vietnamese that has 6 other refs. I grant our mozt prolific NPPer makes the occasional mistake too and don't hassle them. I just fix it - in that case I'll copy over the other 6 refs when I'm on my desktop. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac I am not fully up on AfC policy but userspace policy even Wikipedia:Ownership of content would suggest moving pages out of userspace is not normally done. Is there AfC guidance on this that I could learn more about because the idea of moving content of active editors strikes me as not following normal practice. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:Ownership of content but various policies and guidelines fully support the moves I've made to salvage abandoned pages from long gone users. See WP:STALE for example and this long standing project Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Beat receptor

No. The longer version is not the better version. The longer version is almost certainly the version that was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat receptor. As noted by the AFD closer, the deleted version is written largely to praise Tesla. While Tesla was a brilliant scientist, he was also a pseudo-scientific crackpot. The usual stereotypical mad scientist in movies is a caricature of Nikola Tesla, who was being ridiculed by his rival in the current wars, Thomas A. Edison, who was both an inventor and a businessman, and was heavily invested in movie production (which was partly his invention). Edison disliked Tesla for various reasons, including that Tesla had more book knowledge than Edison, and that Edison lacked the math to understand some of Tesla's ideas, and that Tesla was indeed paranoid (although Edison really was out to get him), and that Tesla was Eastern European. (In short, the current wars do not reflect well on either inventor, although they were both brilliant.) In any case, the longer version was deleted. The short draft has had the Tesla crud removed, and is being worked on, and I am ready to accept it if it is submitted, but I won't accept the long version. I'm going to reject the long version as deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. My assumption was more content meant more developed. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It was more developed. It is just that the development was wrong. Tesla was wrong about a lot of stuff. He was crazy. He was also sometimes right. But he did spend much of his time in his later years trying to develop death rays and things. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft question

Hi. Thought you'd be the best one to help with this query. This Draft:Anrich Nortje was created, for reasons I'm not sure of, about a month ago, but the article already exists in mainspace, and has done for about two years before the draft came along. What's the process for deleting the draft? As far as I can tell, it's just been kept as a (bad) copy of the real article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You can just redirect it which tells the user where to edit. You could blank it and it will get deleted G13 in 6 months. You could MfD it as an WP:UP#COPY though in Draft space, but that is the highest amount of volunteer effort. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll go for the redirect option. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Good morning sir, First of all I give you thanks for nominating my article "Singling, Sikkim". If you see the article is worth now , please remove the "Cleanup" tag. Amitavanath12 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The cleanup tag will attract editors that improve the English on the page. It's a good thing and still needs to be there for now. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:23:09, 25 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nonoxb

• Nonoxb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Norrsken Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you elaborate on the reasons why my draft has been denied ? After the first review I added more external references as requested, so there are now references to 6 well-known (I think) websites that talk about the foundation that I would like to create an article about : TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Local, Dagens Nyheter, Nordic Capital (although this one should probably not be considered as independent since they are investors of the foundation) and Financial Times. Is it that you don't consider these websistes to be well-known enough ? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Nonoxb (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Homer Sutton

I'm all for getting these drafts moved into mainspace, but can we get them a bit more complete first? bd2412 T 17:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was tagged for afc. I think the tagger User:FloridaArmy will expand it - maybe he will comment. It's a decent stub anyway. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As stubs go, it could be worse. bd2412 T 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Frederick Barnes (architect)

HI As requested I have re-worked the article to try and make it "less plagiarised". If there is still an issue please could you copy the relevant passage(s) for a third attempt. Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusations and aspersions

Hi Legacypac. I think it might be helpful for you if you appreciated that your industrial powered old draft processing is startling to some people. I am comfortable with what you do. Highly appreciative actually. You should welcome the occasional review, but of course a review to be a review needs actual examples not aspersions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I want people to review moved pages - that is the whole point of bringing them forward. Some can be improved to mainspace while others turn out to be redundent or sometimes there just are not enough sources to support an article when intensive searching is done. Sometimes a merge is appropriate. Regardless of the outcome, absolutely review and try to improve.

Far less useful is starting various threads with false claims about what the people actually doing something useful are doing and misrepresenting policies while linking to the policy or guideline. That is just weird and unproductive. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, User:Legacypac - I agree that the tagging of the leftover pages is useful. The pages are not always being moved. Very often Legacypac is simply Submitting them. Other reviewers, including myself, are moving them to draft space. Many of them are duplicates or partial duplicates of existing articles. They became that way typically because the editor created the page in user space, and then put it into article space. In such cases, the proper procedure is to decline the draft. If the draft is the same as or a subset of the article, the draft can be redirected to the article. If the draft is significantly different from the article, I note both on the draft and on the talk page of the article that a comparison is in order. I am not sure that this is always helpful, because I am sometimes not sure that anyone is watching the article talk page, but that is what I can do, short of actually comparing them myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

One of the objections to what Legacypac is doing is the idea that the editors will come back and wonder where their toy drafts went. Well, if they come back, which is unlikely, and know how to review a history, they can find out, and can recover the original if it was either overwritten or G13 deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In a few cases, I have found that the author of the tagged page is still off-and-on active. In those cases, I have either removed the AFC-submit template, or declined the draft to let the author deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the page move out of userspace leaves a redirect behind, with the name of the mover attached, it is easy enough for the slow returning user to follow up to work out what happened. I think the redirect should always be left behind for this purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course the redirects are left behind. The main exception is a history merge where the userspace page disappears but then the user copy pasted the info into mainspace themselves so they know where it is exactly. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Hyman

Hello Legacypac More sources have been added, e.g. Fox News clips, could you please take another look at Draft:Kelly Hyman Thank you.Josephintechnicolor (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Anchor Hanover Group

Thank you. But why was it turned down twice? If I was a new editor I would have given up. Rathfelder (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotional feel to the page. I accepted it because the organization is notable and the rest can be fixed. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac

Thank you for the thank.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted by the whole opposition thing.

Portals are an evolving type of page. An experiment. At the rate computer (including server) speeds are increasing, which will make more component types feasible, I doubt portals will be recognizable in even 3 years.

The question is what can we make these things do that everybody will find useful?

That's really what we are trying to do over at the portals department: transcend what has come before.

Slideshows, for example, are a feature we couldn't put into articles, because they won't print out right. If we are to have slideshows, or any other new fangled technology we haven't dreamed up yet, there would need to be a type of page for such technologies to be displayed upon.

That's how I view portals. Navigation aids that are evolving with each foray into the future of the possible.

Without innovative areas, Wikipedia will fall behind the mainstream, and will become a victim of leapfrogging.

Right now, Wikipedia is the head leap-frog, and has left all other encyclopedias far behind.

I hope to help to keep it that way.

But, we should not grow complacent. To stay in the lead, we'll need to innovate.

And we can't really do that in a non-disruptive way in article space. Which makes portal space perfect for this type of endeavor.

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   20:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Just stop. On one side you have long said we can't delete because there is no policy or guideline about what is an appropriate scope. On the other you create over 500 new portals after a large segment of the community voted to shut the whole portal space down. Sure, the vote did not pass but mainly because the "community portal" (which is not a portal really) got into the mix. Looking at some of the portals you created recently and projecting what that means - like 723 District of India Portals if you keep going after quickly creating several dozen District of India portals - is very concerning. You need to help create some guidelines first, run them past the Village Pump (not just the Portal Project members) and then apply them before creating even one new portal. The guidelines can't allow the indiscriminate creation of portals. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not true; even without the fringe departments under the portal space umbrella, the consensus was in favor of portals. It's in print – sitting there to be recounted if necessary. More importantly, is that the vast majority of arguments provided to delete portals were of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions variety. That too, can be easily checked, via random sampling.    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You say it is very concerning, but you don't say what the concern is. The guidelines state what is an acceptable scope for a portal. It's in black and white.

But, you didn't comment on innovation and the future of web page design on Wikipedia. How will that progress if not with projects like this? Just curious what your take on that angle is.

We've got portals down to a single-page each (for the new ones). The old design took 150,000 pages for about 1500 portals (about 100 pages each). Comments?    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist - I had not known that you had created 500 of these silly portals because creating portals is fun. I agree with User:Legacypac that these portals are being created indiscriminately. I would add that your reasons why we need to use portals as experimentation for the future of web sites is marketing buzzspeak. If I didn't know that you were a volunteer, I would think that you were selling some sort of electronic snake oil. Slow down and discuss whether we need portals and what sort of experimentation they are for, or what current need they serve. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What is silly about them? Please explain.

We already discussed whether there is a need for portals, and the community decided "yes". We don't need to re-enact that debate again.

What is your preoccupation with this "fun" notion of yours? Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes). The question I answer before creating a portal is "Would the root article benefit from having a corresponding portal linked on it?" If the answer is yes, and there is enough content resources to support a portal (according to the portals guideline), I go ahead and create it.

How is that indiscriminate? These portals do not break the WP:INDISCRIMINATE rule. So, I don't follow your argument, nor do I understand it, as it isn't based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You haven't pointed out how these portals are indiscriminate, nor have you explained why your conception of indiscriminate is bad. What is "indiscriminate", and what is bad about it? If it pertains to scope, that is already covered in the portals guideline. The portals aren't breaking any rule. The only argument I'm picking up from you guys is that you simply do not like portals.    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all your editing on 'Dr Gene Sherman (art specialist)' entry. I've implemented all of your suggestions. Do you think there is anything else that I can do to improve it? :) Alexiacanvas (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)