Jump to content

User talk:Legacypac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shultzc (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 16 May 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy Deletion of Allen Small

Hello, thank you for your feedback on my first Wikipedia article. I wish to write educational content regarding Ontario's election this year, and wanted to start by filling in information holes. Can you please restore the draft to my user, so I can improve it with more sources to meet Wikipedia's acceptable criteria, and make it sound less like an advertisement (apparently). I have no connection to the party, and do not intend to vote for the party either, so the last thing I want is for it to sound like an ad. My only goal is to be informative across different aspect's of this year's election.

In regards to sourcing, there are many more reputable newspapers available that cover his biography, platform, and views that I can add to help beef up the viability of the page.

In regards to the reasoning for deletion, the party is not a minority party, as they are 1 of 5 parties running a full slate of candidates in this year's election, and received about 1% of the popular vote last election. The next closest party in size don't have enough candidates to even win a majority if all were elected, and received a fraction of the popular vote. The party, and their candidates are among the 5 listed on the official Ontario 2018 election Wikipedia page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OntarioElection2018 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Response to your comments on Kopparapu Poets

Regarding your comment declining above submission, I humbly submit that your observation--'that these poets were not famous when they were alive and their works were not published during their life time. Some one brought out their works later in a volume and wanted to promote it on wikipedia---is not correct for the following reasons:

1. As mentioned in the text itself, these poets were legends during the short time they lived and were contemporary rivals of another duo poets, namely Tirupati Venkata Kavulu which is also available on wikipedia. As editors of wikipedia, you might have visited this page several times and I as a contributor to wikipedia wonder why such doubts did not arise in respect of Tirupati Venkata Kavulu given the style of writing and referencing pattern being same. In fact, I have given more citations for Kopparapu Poets including Pottisriramulu Telgu University (Hyderabad) Compilation on these poets in page 118 published in 2005 as Luminaries in Telugu.

2. Secondly, there is a Telugu post, namely Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu or కొప్పరపు సోదర కవులు in regional language wikpedia.[1]. Moreover, there is a call from Wikipedia urging Indian contributors to translate Telugu or other language wikiposts in to English. Viewed from this point, this post may kindly be accepted though my English text is an independent text, not a true translation of Telugu regional version available on Telugu wikipedia. However, citations and references are same and more also in English version.

3.Publishing industry, both in Telugu and English, was very poor in interior India during the times when the poets lived and performed Avadhanams.Hence, whatever manuscripts were available, they were published later by their admirers. Lately all such scattered works have been compiled and edited and published in a single volume. Hence non-publishing of the works of these poets during their life time has nothiing to do with their notability and reputation at that time as one can understand from the Telugu version of same poets in wikipedia.

4. I am not a paid contributor and have no interest to promote dead/living poets. As I mentioned there is a Telugu post in Telugu wikipedia on these poets. Similarly there is a post in English on their rival poets in English Wikipedia. Hence, this post. Therefore, I request you to kindly review the submission and accept it.

5. Each time a new editor is raising new volley of questions (despite several such posts existing both in English and Telugu wikipedia) which are making it increasingly tough for new contributors like me to respond to such volleys of rejections.MUMACHA2203 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and acceptation

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I have two questions, please: I wish to add photos that I find on the athlete's wiki pages but it seems I don't have the permission? At this point, should my page be moved/renamed? Thank you again. (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I appreciate the feedback. --Mfrerich (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, as well! This was an excellent learning experience, and I feel like I made a grade I'm happy with. Jam today, jam tomorrow 15:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayjam (talk • contribs)

Hi, thank you for the tip!

Thanks for the review and all the hard work you put into wiki --DrDebo (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kate Gibbs

Thanks for asking for my opinion. I don't want to become too involved with it because it is yet another "alansohn article". However, my opinion would be that she does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Although with a different title, she serves the same role in her county as Thomas A. DeGise which we deleted here. I don't see any significant in-depth coverage outside of the local newspaper and even that is mostly routine election coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the sources are predominantly primary with some local news coverage, nothing to get it close to WP:GNG level. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. That lines up with my quick assessment. Created by a new acct and in AfC so not related to him. I'll go decline it. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the history of that draft, you'll see why I said that.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True that. Appreciate the feedback. That page should never make it to mainspace now. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:35, 17 March 2018 review of submission by Willowisawisp


I don't understand what I need to do to get this published. I was looking up this band a while ago and couldn't find any details of the recordings (i.e. track listings) on Wikipedia. I looked it up elsewhere and decided to make a page so others could find it. This is a very important record in it's genre and has been included on several compilations of the band since release. The band itself is hugely influential and was even championed by legendary radio DJ John Peel.

I provided two sources that mention the importance of this album and all over Wikipedia I see stub articles of albums with no information or sources for notability of that particular release (which shouldn't be a bad thing for releases from notable artists) so why has this been declined?

Willowisawisp (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover

Sorry, I have to revert this. I was not aware of the discussion with other admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung did you happen to see this conversation? I know this is likely coming from the lengthy ACTRIAL conversations, but just wanted to check that you saw it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: FYI, you removed the NPR right—not the page mover  :) sorry about all that Legacypac. At some point your work will be (more) appreciated. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I would not use pagemover was incorrect. Just a little NPPing last night resulted in at least 4 moves to Draft where I could have surpressed the redirects. Getting and keeping simple PERMs around here is really hard. I have to regularly request deletion of redirects I create. Legacypac (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes one think some admins think they are holier than thou sitting in judgement of an obvious good faith contributor who only wants to reduce the Admin workload by removing some mindless tasks from the Admin to do list. Maybe I need to take this to ArbComm or something. All very very insulting and abusive. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know; yes and no. You know what'll happen: You will keep bugging XYZ admins for a page move—all in good faith beause they need to be done—and sooner or later one of them is going to turn round and say, "You can do this, and save XYZ admins the trouble." After all, I mentioned NOBIGDEAL—NODEADLINE too :) but people will notice, and when they suddenly realise they can save themselves a lot of work by one flick of a switch—bingo. But I understand your feelings (sort of—I'd be a really crap page mover!!!) —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just keep noting this opportunity on my G6s. Some admin is smart enough to follow policy eventually. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think LP's work more than justifies the PM right, but I can't overturn a consensus by my fellow admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC reviewing

Hi, Thanks for your support and kind words at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any questions just ask at AfC talk or ping me on the article and I'll try to help. I really want to clear the backlog as it is being used as a reason to keep the torrent of spam post ACTRIAL on. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the suggestion from your user page

Legacypac, your user page suggests reaching out to you rather than assuming the worst. I think that is good advice so I would like to give it a shot. I don't think the whitewash claim is correct. Like you I think I'm trying to make a good faith effort to improve articles. I think my general attitude is that most topics aren't black and white so in many cases I would rather we try to come up with articles/sources that offer a greater understanding. If you look at my Ford Pinto edits you can see that the real effort was to find sources that went into considerable detail regarding how and why Ford ended up with the Pinto. Much of what people understood about Ford's actions weren't supported by research or in other cases were due to the normal information flow in a very big organization vs any deliberate plan. You can also see this in my earliest involved article about the Corvette's unusual suspension design. The best thing we can do with an article is have someone leave with a better depth of understanding. This is why I often want to add more to both sides of a story or in some cases remove information that seems very one sided in presentation (assuming removal is supported by policy/guidelines). I know that you have perceived some of my recent edits as whitewashing. The accusation stings so I would be happy to discuss if that would help smooth things. We don't have to agree on the editorial result but I hope we can both be convinced the other is trying to improve things. Thanks for the time! Springee (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I don't follow car pages and I've not dug into your edit history but you keep popping up on my radar around guns and now UDA. I feel like you are trying to remove negative info from controversial subjects, and not info that is crazy conspiracy stuff but mainstream views of the subject. That strikes me as the wrong way to go about things. If you feel more balance is needed, find RS providing a different narrative and ADD that, don't DELETE the valid criticisms. On the UDC example, I'm not an American so I've got no side in the ACW, but I was educated in both Washington DC and I pay attention to the issues. You are trying to chop down one tree you don't like while ignoring it stands in a forest of critical evidence that incontrovertibly shows the UDC is to its core WS. Southern Poverty Law Center did not invent the idea 20 years ago on a whim and their assessment has not changed. We record history here, we don't toss a source because it is old. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind reply. I did find the UDA material based on one of your edits. I wasn't specifically looking for the material but it caught my eye. I'm not from the southern US but I lived in the area for many years and have read about the culture enough to realize things are often more complex and I'm at least a little familiar with the issues with college campus memorials to southern soldiers. The gun topic isn't a simple one in general I apply the thought, what do 3rd party articles about that topic (ie the Model X gun) talk about? If those articles talk about a crime then I think we should include a mention and a clear pointer to the primary topic. If they don't then I would suggest weight doesn't support inclusion. Interestingly we had a similar issue that came up related to cars and the RFC was overwhelmingly one sided.[[1]] With the NRA material, I'm not a member (never have been, likely never will) but I do think a number of the articles are rather single dimensional in coverage. The boycott clearly turned into a big thing but I think we should include some discussion of the possible motives of those who did and didn't join. I've found some RSs that talk about the motives of the companies but I haven't added them to the article. To be honest I've largely raised concerns on the talk page, provided reference and hoped that others would edit because I don't want to get into an edit war. I don't want to waste your time but if you are interested I would be happy to discuss some of the potential edits on my mind if it will end up smoothing things out and take some of the rough edges off the ideas. Springee (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to look at ideas. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacypac, I know we don't agree on some of these subjects. I can tell your perspective is not mine but please assume good faith. I don't like being accused of white washing or the like. I'm sure you would think it unfair to be accused of tarring. If my suggestions/edits have PAG issues let's talk about it.

I won't always be right and I'm sure not all of my suggestions are going to be worth keeping. I would much rather just collaborate. Thanks Springee (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)·[reply]

Everytime your edits and comments pop up on my radar the edits and comments are exactly what I would expect an NRA employed editor would do. I'm not saying you work for the NRA, but it sure seems you are a "True Believer". Show some proper balance, stop going against WP:NOTADVOCATE and I'll not be calling out your very biased editing anymore. If you have a WP:COI you should disclose of course. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:47:04, 22 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Loudbabyjoe


Respectfully, you are incorrect in your assessment and comment of: "Paid Work on other artist albums is not notable. He did not win a grammy the album by someone else did".

The Award was NOT for the artist Depeche Mode or for the original song. The Grammy Award was for Best Remixed Recording and it was awarded to Dennis White, aka. LATROIT. Please view the following videos, which showing him receiving the award.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_XCKVf09GA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtgS79Pbjgw

Loudbabyjoe (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Life copy revision guidance


Hello! I would be so grateful for your help understanding which copy is problematic in our submission? We edited it to be just facts no advertising-speak and referenced the wikipedia pages of other young companies in terms of sourcing articles in the media etc when writing it. Definitely want to make sure we are in accordance with wikirules but need some help as a newbie. Could you help? Happy to chat on the phone or online. Thank you so much!

50.0.2.19 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)emily@ladderlife.com[reply]

50.0.2.19 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution issues on approved drafts

You had a look at the draft "User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte" and commented that you were unsure of how to proceed. The text has already been approved by two administrators (one being Megalibrarygirl herself) so renaming it to "Revised Gregorian calendar" will finish the job - no need for it to sit around in AfC. The only real issue here is attribution - I suggest that be handled with the following edit summary:

posting an article contributed by Special:Contributions/156.61.250.250 in edits of 13:45, 13:52, 13:59, 15:12 and 15:21, 21 May 2015

Enjoy your Easter weekend. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:ADD3:F9A2:3E64:806B (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the admin user wants to promote the page they don't need my help. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl is a writer for "Women in red". She starts articles in her userspace and when she is satisfied with them she will either promote them or create an article using copy/paste. With the second method, the prior history is lost but this does not matter because she holds the copyright. So I think it might be rather imposing on her to ask her to deal with all the intricacies of attributing an article created by someone else. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:ADD3:F9A2:3E64:806B (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(by talk reader) " the prior history is lost but this does not matter because she holds the copyright" This is imprecise; Everything submitted is CC BY-SA per WP:ATTREQ. Copy-paste moves are always a bad idea and can be fixed per WP:HISTMERGE. The OR-fest you're trying to push is in her userspace and she can move the content when she chooses.Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
all content there was created by an IP, not the Admin. It has not been approved by the userspace owner. Please don't put misleading statements on my talk. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. Looks like someone has suggested that "the Admin" created the article. That certainly wasn't me - I said

...it might be rather imposing on her to ask her to deal with all the intricacies of attributing an article created by someone else.

To make it crystal clear I suggested an edit summary explaining exactly who is responsible:

posting an article contributed by Special:Contributions/156.61.250.250 in edits of 13:45, 13:52, 13:59, 15:12 and 15:21, 21 May 2015

When you say "It has not been approved by the userspace owner" what other reason could there be for her invitation to another administrator to restore a page which she had deleted G6? And if she thought the content was defective why would she throw out an invitation to editors to work on it either before or after promotion? It is defective now because you have changed a link from live to dead - do you have any objection to me restoring the current URL? There's no OR and no reason to burn this draft as suggested by Chris. It's policy that if a computer program has been peer-reviewed, someone has used it to establish facts, and someone has inserted those facts into an article citing how they were established no original research has been undertaken. In precisely the same way, if your scientific calculator says that the value of a function is x and you quote that value there is no OR because your pocket calculator has been demonstrated to come up with the correct answers. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:95E9:BAB2:C59C:618E (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After several attempts I managed to correct that URL. Only the renaming is left to do, and that will be one piece of clutter less in Megalibrarygirl's userspace. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:9D06:1C5:80D:9F64 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of S&W by NRA

Life is stranger than fiction: A gunmaker once tried to reform itself. The NRA nearly destroyed it., WaPo.

Also: "The Clinton-era assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and two years later Smith & Wesson introduced its first tactical rifle — modeled on the AR-15, branded the M&P15. (...) Police said the [Parkland] shooter used an M&P15 tactical rifle, made by Smith & Wesson."

Wow. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know - wow is right. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Spam and Wiki-Spam

There is blatant wiki-spam, which should go out G11, and marginal G11 that needs to go out via deletion processes. We are now also seeing COI editors trying to bully volunteer editors into reworking their articles via a combination of edit-requests and dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and there is clueless wikispam of resumes and facebook posts where there is no conceivable gain other than an ego boost. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello. I need you help. How do I report a user anonymously. I have been victim of bullying by multiple users (some I think are admins). I used the admin attention section but because they are admins I assume they just removed it. Thanks. Makro (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell if someone is an Admin or not - go to their userpage and looks to the left for View User groups. I'm not an admin. If you feel someone is following you around try [3] to build a case. I've been harassed a few times but I kind of doubt multiple editors are doing that to you at once as its pretty rare. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely 3 editors (at least one is an admin). How can I get around that. I try to contact Wiki but they ignore. It's like they dont care about their users. Makro (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's exceedingly hard to deal with regular abusive editors and virtually impossible to stop an Admin from abusing you. Your ownly defence is perfectly clean hands and really good luck. There are over five million pages to edit. Ignore whoever is bothering you and find an area or two to get really good at. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I'll just ignore them but keep evidence in case it escalates. Makro (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Makro - I am a little late to comment, but I see no evidence that you are being bullied by admins. I see no evidence for two reasons. First, you follow the permitted but less-than-desirable practice of deleting your talk page rather than archiving it, and this makes it hard to see what you are complaining about. Second, in looking at the history, it does appear that you at least should have discussed the issues rather than deleting them and then claiming that you need to report admin abuse anonymously. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a way to report users almost anonymously, anonymously to everyone but CheckUsers and Arbs, which is to report them logged out. It won't do you any good, and it is only your own nose that you will be sticking the beans in. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac is apparently less adverse to complaints about bullying by admins than I am, but his talk page is a semi-public place, and for every real case of bullying by admins there are at least 25 cases of combative editors who consider cautions directed to them to be a form of bullying. Some of them get sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac is a bit jaded as experience has shown. Makro Wikipedia is an open environment. We like it that way. By editing anonymously you will only attract scrutiny of your own behavior and make yourself look bad. There are no secrets here and no secret running behind someone's back. Have you considering replying to your alleged abusers and asking them for clarification? Have you tried posting a "helpme" template on your talk page? Can you cite examples of the so called abuse by providing links to said abuse? As Robert says, by removing talk page comments you make it hard to evaluate others' comments. You also make yourself look bad. Robert is very wise and will steer you in the right direction. Was it abuse, or information you did not want to hear? Await your apply.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypak, telling him to ignore the comments of others was not a great idea. Just a quick review shows there have been several problems. He may or may not have addressed them. From the post here, I guess not. Makro, just a quick review shows that you need to heed the the advice and warnings others have given you. I've seen no abuse, just genuine concerns with your editing. I won't enumerate here, but really.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noise pop

Hi - I moved a draft article back to main space - possibly in error. I noticed you on the page's history and wondered if you might have been the AfC reviewer. If so apologies. I left a note to this effect here: Talk:Noise_Pop Edaham (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just quickly checked it for references and notablity which seems to be ok when I took off the AfC tags. It came up in an AfC category for pages with AfC tags in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, I didn't want to take off the tags myself because I'm not an AfC reviewer, and was clicking through pages trying to find our who the reviewer might be. You've saved me some time and worry. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Good move. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, there's no requirement for a page to go through the AFC process, so if you find a page and you think it's good enough, you're welcome to move it to the article space. Just make sure you remove all of the AFC-related templates when you do! Primefac (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

autobio's

Someone must have given a seminar on SEO, Wikipedia, and YOU.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching "facebook.com" in Draft space - it is like shooting fish in a barrel for finding G11 pages. Soundcloud and bandcamp would be good search terms for non-notable bands and linkedin.com for business profiles. Similar searches in userspace would be productive too. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spam can.png
The Working Man's Barnstar
For tidying up draft space and clearing out the spam --Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi Legacypac, I was wondering if I could solicit your opinion on the notability of a BLP before sending it to AFD. Kendall Webb appears to fail both the GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL because he did not compete in a high enough association. I know you work a lot with sportspeople's notability, and WP:BASKETBALL seemed to be pretty dead so I didn't ask there. NAIA was not mentioned on the guideline's list of associations, but being unfamiliar with basketball I don't know if that list is complete or a sample. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊

Thanks for asking. I'm no basketball expert, but lots of people watch my talkpage and maybe someone will comment. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academics at AFC

Hi Legacypac -- do you have a list of the academic drafts you accepted post-decline? I'd be interested to go through them to see why they were declined and by whom. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just my move log, you 'd have to check the cleanup edit on each one. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one I like Draft:Ding-Zhu Du solved a couple notable math problems. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of your move log. As you surmise, Ding-Zhu Du should not have been declined; I assume you plan to promote it once you've tidied? I was looking at Draft:Richard Neapolitan but that is quite problematic. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Your edits at Ark Encounter

Be aware that creationism and flood 'science' are considered pseudosciences, and it is an arbcom ruling that sanctions can be applied for people that remove information relating to pseudoscience. In this particular case, your edits removed the identification of pseudoscience. Don't do that.GliderMaven (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant to the topic, which is a theme park. Don't threaten me. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the source right after "pseudosciences" didn't not mention those term, and (yes) it is a themepark, I tend to agree that all the labels added to the park bordered on soapboxing. Perhaps someone can find a reliable source for the "fundamentalist" or "pseudoscience", but until then, I would agree with the deletion for the sake of neutrality. The burden is on you GliderMaven, and I strongly suggest starting a discussion on the talk page rather than getting into an edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dennis. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now User:TechBear has reverted me. [4] Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the article. WP:UNDUE is very clear on this point. Since I've voiced an opinion, I'm not free to admin the issue. It should seem rather obvious to any neutral observer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, this is a very, very clearcut case of pseudoscience, if it was just portrayed as religion by AIG that would be fine, but it *is* portrayed as science by AIG, and there are binding arbcom rulings that 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' are pseudoscience.GliderMaven (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manifattura Automobili Torino

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me out with this page? It's not an AfC submission but one from the new pages feed. It has no lead and is just a list of cars some, or most, of which do not appear to be made by the company but rather the founder has (possibly) been involved in the design or manufacturing process whilst employed elsewhere. A Google search reveals these results and on the basis of that there is a probable WP:CCS and possible notability, but there is little in the article to demonstrate this... it has virtually no content. Any advice? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First - I want one of those cars! It's fairly new page about a plausibly notable company but there is no real content. hmmm I tried PROD. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions at Ark Encounter

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

GliderMaven (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware already. Take me to ArbComm but remember you are also bound by the same rules. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think only one of us is disrupting the article by removing referenced material. You do not appear to have been previously tagged within the last 12 months. The way it works is that you have to be aware that sanctions can be applied to this topic area. Since you now have, any further actions by you can result in you being topic blocked from creationist related material without warning.GliderMaven (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GliderMaven: It is not even remotely, by any stretch, a proper reliable reference. The reference is a highly opinionated piece written from a very biased non neutral point of view ("... a vile form of pseudo-science" is very biased and emotive phrasing indeed). He is entitled to his point of view, of course, but no one is entitled to use a it as supporting evidence that the subject project is based on any pseudo-science to which he alludes. In fact, the article contains no evidence that any scientific explanation (pseudo or otherwise) for the biblical account has been produced (that does not mean that it hasn't, just that there is no evidence of it). One can't even call it a 'fringe theory', because there is no shortage of religious believers of various persuasions, who believe in the biblical version rather than any scientifically proven explanation.
Now, of course, if someone can come up with a genuine reliable reference that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis has produced a reasoned scientifically based analysis to support their version of events, I would be perfectly happy to underwrite its inclusion in the article. For the avoidance of doubt: I go with the scientifically proven version. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, are you saying this is the second DS notice in one year? Because if it isn't, it's required. You must be alerted before any sanctions other than specific ones on a talk page can be imposed on you. And we don't deal with enforcement, that's done either by uninvolved Admins as it says, or at WP:AE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that some editors are pushing their religion on Ark Encounter. For example On one side they use the word "scientist" and "creationist" but object to the word "evolutionist" even though each word means some one who believes in the root word. They are pushing their non-neutral position into the article. Feel free to impose the DS they keep threatening others with. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "belief" is not contained in ANY definition of the word scientist, belief has nothing to do with science. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You believe you appear to still be struggling with English. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge Dictionary… creationist, a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible and does not accept the theory of evolution [5]

Cambridge Dictionary…scientist​, an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences [6] notice there is no mention of the word “belief” Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other of whitewashing

Legacypac, you have accused myself and other editors of whitewashing and similar with respect to firearms related articles. I've tried outreach and polite requests to drop the accusations as it violates WP:AGF. If it continues I will bring this up at WP:ANI. Springee (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits speak for themselves. Scrubbing all mention of controversy from a gun manufacturer or removing words like assault rife [1] is whitewashing. I edit from a neutral POV. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the removal. I think we will have to agree to disagree but we can do it with an assumption of good faith. Springee (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning if I have a conflict of interest under the circumstances is also not really AGF. I have none in any way related to firearms or the associated topics. Springee (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the accusations associated with these edits or they and previous accusations will go to ANI. [[7]][[8]]. Springee (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to edit without regard to neutrality. Please try to follow Wikipedia policy more closely. Given you edit like you are on the NRA payroll, asking nicely if you have any undeclared conflicts seems appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my opinions of policy etc isn't editing without regard to neutrality. Additionally I've made only a few article space edits because these are contentious topics. I have clearly stated I have no COI. As I told another editor, I am not, have never been and likely never will be an NRA member or associated with the NRA. I'm sure there are times that I think something is neutral etc but my perception isn't aligned with most others. However, I would ask you to consider the same. I appreciate that earlier you removed the accusation (which is the only part of the edits I would ask that you remove). You are more than welcome to disagree with me but I ask that you stick to the topic. Please remove the direct accusations in the edits above. Springee (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Last request before it goes to ANI, please remove the accusations from these comments [[9]][[10]] Springee (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-whats-an-assault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html

Ridiculous Smith & Wesson article

Thank you for being one of the few reasonable people to edit the Smith & Wesson article. As you can see, there are a few S&W employees who have managed to consistently suppress any criticism whatsoever, without engaging in any discussion. I'm trying to get the WSJ to do a story about it, because the history of this article is illustrative of how commercialized and manipulated Wikipedia has become, IMHO. Anyway, I've been banned by Springee and his friend, so please keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfindingmission (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the page is a big advertisement for the company. We regularly decline much less blatent advertising at WP:AfC. Just be careful to stay NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Topology

It is nice to have you handle this new article. FYI: the topic of Universal Topology of Physics was created by me. There currently has no contents. You safely delete it. It is preferred to use the name Universal Topology. Thank you, Vitumanity (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you are talking about User:Vitumanity/sandbox. I'm not qualified to fully evaluate that topic but I'll help you move it to mainspace as a favor. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation there is more to this situation Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Universal topology and you don't need my help. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ark Encounter. Your edit reintroduced factual errors into the article. Do it again, and I'll report you to administrators jps (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No my edit removed your clear personal opinion. [12] It was you who was wrong. Lots of Admins watch this page so consider yourself self reported.
You may have abused Rollback here [13]. My edit was reasonsed, in line with discussion on the talkpage, included a clear edit summary and clearly NOT vandalism.
You have no business restoring Bill Nye as an expert in evolution or science as discussed on Ark Encounter talk. He is not even an actual scientist, he is an actor who plays a scientist on TV, with no expertise in creation, evolution, geology, Biblical studies or any other area around the theme park. Perhaps as an entertainer he might be qualified to discuss the entertainment value if the exhibits but he is a pseudoscientist being used to call something pseudoscience.
You are edit warring [14] on a DS area as noted by the editor who reverted you.
Now, how would you like to proceed with the problems you abused Rollback and are edit warring? Did you want to voluntarilly give up the PERM or would you prefer a case be opened against you? Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP, I suggest you adhere to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. and reword your accusation that Bill Nye is a "pseudoscientist" that you wrote here. jps (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Ark Encounter, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edit [15] has been removed. jps (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP noticeboard

Seriously - the guy plays a scientist on TV but he is not a scientist. Look the word up. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that argument. jps (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Ham clearly does consider Nye to be an authority, or he would not have debated him. You need to understand the difference between faux-scientist and pseudoscientist. And Nye is neither: he doesn't pretend to be a scientist at all, he's an engineer. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Ham is most interested in publicizing his theme park. Getting a TV personality to have an entertaining debate clearly worked to that end. "Bill Nye the Science Guy" clearly holds himself out as a science expert in some sense with his self attributed title but he is just an entertainer with no special training or expertise in science. I could call myself "the legal guy" because I know a lot about law but that does not make me a lawyer. I'm also not critical of Nye - he's been pretty successful as an actor, I'm pointing out the inappropriateness of using actor Nye's opinion to label something pseudoscience. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also jps's conduct at talk in general is dismissive, rude and inappropriate. I forsee a topic ban being warrented soon. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so do I. Just not for jps. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are nuetral and I'm not misbehaving Guy. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure JzG. jps' initial post was clearly an abuse of a warning template. If they call good-faith edits vandalism again then they're looking at a block. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did they abuse Rollback on me? I can't tell but that would be an abuse of the userright. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not inclined to remove the right unless a history of misuse is shown. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keymon Ache/Educational Inequality on Southeast Michigan

Hi Legacypac -- I've commented on the former & deprotected the title. I need to go offline now, and haven't made a detailed review of the latter, but I see no reason in AfC policy to decline Draft:Educational Inequality on Southeast Michigan. We have an article at Educational inequality in the United States but there's no reason not to have details state by state if someone can be bothered to write it. The tone looks fixable with some deletion, but I worry about copyvio with material like this. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too but it was built over many edits by a student in a wikipedia university course. Not a paste in from anywhere. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...

I really don't like having to challenge my second NAC in as many weeks, but how is giving an IDHT "Oh, I totally didn't mean that -- please ignore the socking and BLP issues" exactly what it asks for a good idea? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey feel free to reopen if you want. Your case is really weakly presented and I'd advise agaist pursuing this but it's your risk. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dad's Army Characters

That is a list of characters, my proposal was a separate article on the character to give more details as the details are brief in the list, take the example Captain Mainwaring being in the list yet having his own separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScottishElephant (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no special feelings on it but standard procedure is the existing page should be expanded and really well done - then discuss a WP:SPINOUT on the talkpage of the existing page. This is a minor charactor in an old tv show - may not warrent a stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Hoseah Tjale Barry Ne (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft speedy deletion

I noticed your discussions with SoWhy in my travels around this fraught subject. Have you tried deleting problematic drafts on BLPs especially under-18s under WP:G10? It's about the only criterion on which, as a self-confessed rule-bound inclusionist admin, I'm prepared to do a fair amount of IAR-ing. A lot of the child/YA autobios seem to contain discussions of suicide/self harm, low self-image, body image problems or lack of ability at scholastic or social matters, certainly sufficient to qualify. And a lot of the adult resume type have inappropriate contact details, though I suppose those would also probably fall under G11. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some advise RevDel but it's hard to file those. I've recently been blanking than G6 as that prevents mirros from picking up the content when the tag hits. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine BLP-sensitive, and all sensitive, information deletion should be done quietly. Email Wikipedia:Oversight. Don’t tag with flags saying “BLP-sensitive info here!” Blanking is actually great, and simply removing the actual data maybe better, as it causes the mirrors to do the same. Post-deletion, the mirrors lock in the last known version. If oversight don’t suppress the information, take that as a message that you are over-stressing. Kids birthdays, for example, are not really that precious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, SmokeyJoe. I just delete the non-extreme cases in mainspace on sight unless there's some clear reason not to. I've thankfully not seen very much that seemed extreme enough to warrant oversight on top. I hadn't thought of mirror site behaviour but drafts, user pages and new pages at NPP should all be in the non-index heap anyway. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No index is a fantasy. It is only slightly harder to find. Links in draft and userspace have SEO value. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute for Caleb Glover Photo

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[16]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[17]]".The discussion is about the topic The photo of Caleb Glover needs to be returned to the UDC page. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Gi076011 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Thanks so much for your help in identifying the confusion between Neil Scott and Neil Scott Bogart -

I have added Neil Scott's middle name - Stuart - I hope this elimunates any confusion, do i need to do anything else?

Many thanks in advance. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWise007 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Did you mean to post this one section above? That is where the comment you appear to be replying to is. - theWOLFchild 06:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to post exactly where I posted in response to the citing of the bbc article immeditely above my post. I don't know why you inserted your long post above mine [18] here which is like shoving yourself in line at the store. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you say so. It's just that you wrote "You may have a valid point about wp:commonname", and since that edit didn't mention mention commonname and I did (the only one on the entire page), it seemed you meant to reply to my post in the section above. Plus that editor was at indent 3 and your post was only at indent 1, so it didn't appear to be a direct reply to them, but as I said misplaced, and since I was directly replying to them, I posted right after, with indent 4. The fact that I posted here confirms that (so why are you claiming to not know why I inserted my post there?), clearly I wasn't trying to "line jump" ahead of you (though I don't even see how that's an analogy, we're not "in line" for anything and putting my comment above of yours doesn't mean you have to wait longer to post). I thought your post was going to be moved, that's all, it's not a big deal and there is no need to get upset about this. Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 07:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Congrax. :)  M A A Z   T A L K  15:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I got this one but thank-you :)

  • I gave it to you for your excellent reasoning on Afds. I also think that considering subject-specific guidelines, Afd rules are quite lenient on some people belonging to certain domain while strict to other people belonging to some different domain.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Respectfully, can you help me understand what "Incorrect DAB type parenthetical title" means for Alan Michael (Braufman) and Alan Michael Braufman? The subject has his birthname (Alan Michael Braufman) which he has never gone by professionally, a former professional name (Alan Braufman) and a current professional name (Alan Michael). Alan Michael is the preferred name (as it's his current alias) but Alan Michael is taken by another subject. Would Alan Michael (musician) be appropriate? Help me understand so I can decide if I am warranted in taking issue with it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music fam (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mistake so much as something outside the norm creating a weird situation. Normally the (descriptor) should help identity the person vs other people by the same name, usually by profession or year of birth for people that have the same profession. You would not normally search or wikilink the unnatural looking "Alan Michael (Braufman)" but the searcher would use his stage name or his full name. In this case his full name is an available title and we can put a note at the top of Alan Michael saying "for the singer using the stage name Alan Michael see .... AMB". Hope that helps. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha

Ah, I see that we caught up to each other! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wilfully plagiarized you and started at the bottom of the list. Good job :) Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PERM is pretty full right now ;) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps cut the backlog and allows us to raise the AfC standards too. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess administrators at PERM are confused (though Alex said some positives) and nobody is directly willing to give me NPP :P Dial911 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do good work - that PERM will happen soon because some other changes are coming soon. If you want to build a great NPP track record check out User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All my CSD log is because of this guide of yours. I got even better at differentiating between utter crap and keep-able stuff. Just wanted to ask that, what is it that is keeping you from going into an RfA? Dial911 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you.-72bikers (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of posting on my talk - where you are always welcome - to tell me not to post on your talk is delicious. Obviously you don't like me pointing out your problematic edits. Users that don't like to be approached directly tend to get flagged at ANi, 3RR, and Admin talkpages instead but hey it's your risk not mine User:72bikers Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your aspersions to yourself. This is what a admin advised me to do in response to your threats left on my talk page [19]You insist on removing my posts that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? So if you ever do this again you will be immediately sanctioned. Please keep all comments of me to the appropriate article talk page on topic. -72bikers (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you User:72bikers for posting this accusation and threat here where I can respond instead of posting lies about me on your talk [20] [21] where you will not let me respond. Claiming I'm harrassing you [22] and that I'm violating policy [23] is casting aspirations BTW. You have been warned [24] by User:NeilN but you persist [25] in exactly the same line of posting. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qs about Nikolas Badminton Article

Hi Legacypac,

Thanks for your work/efforts in approving this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Badminton

Can you give me any ideas on how to get these flags removed?

Best Wishes MrVanDigital (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Badminton? Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Legacypac widgets

No relation, right? ;) MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice he is testing. I feel like slapping a Template:NSFW on it. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the NSFW template posted Usage comments. Not what we want. I moved the Usage to the template talk. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still tweeking it. Good test. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Please don't put words into my mouth. If you have experience of these processes, you should know that a high proportion of nominations are made by a small number of editors each making large numbers of nominations. That isn't half of all editors. It is not even close to half. Some of those editors go on what is known as a 'deletion spree'. And since I was referring to the nominations, I said nothing about admins.

I can't think of any technical reason why it should be impossible for the software to distinguish between good articles and bad. Cluebot already does something very similar.

The RfC is the correct venue to discuss the proposal. My user talk page is not. James500 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for attempting to engage you about something somewhat off topic from the RfC. Since I seek deletion of hundreds of pages User:Legacypac/CSD_log some days, we shall have to agree to disagree about the % of bad nominations and Admin accepts going on. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

20:37:20, 17 April 2018 review of submission by NikkLivingston


NikkLivingston (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For the Not Suitable for Wikipedia template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'm finding it works great to put right on the decline message. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Aubrey Kruger Barry Ne (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Legacypac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See post below the block notice. Legacypac (talk) 11:54 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

The general sentiment is that the block was too harsh or unneeded. However, you need to realize this is the second time this year you've been blocked for harassment (other block was also lifted) so your communication style is definitely attracting the notice of admins in not a good way. NeilN talk to me 18:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely NOT harassing Springee in any way shape or form. I simply reverted a controversial edit that went against an RFC that had just closed - an edit that removed good sources and longstanding text that were negative to the NRA. [26] I don't track Springee's edits or care one wit about what he is doing - I only watch that article because I've edited it a few times. We established that "Whitewashing" is a perfectly acceptable word for what the edit was. Your Admin action here is not appropriate and needs to be reversed immediately User:JamesBWatson.

Since this was not specified - for the benefit of talkpage stalkers I have been blocked for 1 week for a single edit [27] restoring the status quo which Springee than reverted me on [28] and User:MrX promptly reverted back to the original version I had reverted to [29].

The charge that I am harassing anyone is baseless and a serious malignment of my editing. I require an WP:ADMINACCT of this action and an unblock. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson has indicated he'll be away until the beginning of May. How do you want to proceed? A post to AN? --NeilN talk to me 15:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins really need to quit blocking editors and then taking extended absences. I have some comments about this, but I will wait to see if this goes to AN for a block review.- MrX 🖋 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I was astonished to see what he had been blocked for, he certainly didn't appear to be harassing Springee, User:Legacypac will be seriously missed at WP:AFC. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked for a week, not indefinitely. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A week is a VERY long time at WP:AFC Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but a debate about the reliance on AFC on a single editor is something best debated elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble seeing the need for this block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim, if you see no need for the block, and/or feel the unblock request is acceptable, you are allowed to unblock them. That's the whole point of an unblock request. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know User:NeilN. What's the best way to proceed in your opinion? If someone wants to just unblock me I'll have a discussion with JamesBWatson when he returns. It's a little unfair that Admins can just block an established editor but there is very little recourse against a bad block and the next admin cites the last bad block as justification for their own action. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally will not unblock in these types of cases without consulting the blocking admin or hearing the opinions of other uninvolved admins. Primefac did not indicate if they favor an unblock. Pinging Seraphimblade, who closed the ANI thread, for their thoughts. --NeilN talk to me 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ANi from some time ago this relates to did not even suggest sanctions on me. My previous actions were so mild I ignored the ANi and JamesBWatson closed it. Then Springee insisted it be reopenned and made me respond because it appears he thinks I think whitewashing is something other than "an attempt to stop people finding out the true facts about a situation" (Cambridge dictionary). Removing negative well sourced info on the NRA article is exactly whitewashing. This is all very strange. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: @Dlohcierekim: I closed that ANI the way I did due to the bickering and overall poor behavior of many editors. Legacypac was one who needs to change their approach (and even in this instance, focus on the edit, not the editor), but he was far from the only one who needs to do so. A week's block for saying "whitewashing" seems way over the top to me. That's far milder than a lot of the other bickering that's gone on in this area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Would favor discussion first in case I missed something. It looks like I'm the only one who has come close to saying "unblock" straight out. Also, cannot say for certain I am unbiased toward Legacypak.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you User:NeilN for the unblock on a very surprising block. I may take this up with User:JamesBWatson when he returns. The allegations he made are quite serious and deserve scrutiny. All editors should be more careful Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where James is coming from. About six or seven years ago I used "whitewashing" in an edit summary and was chastised by another editor for not assuming good faith. They had sort of a point. Everyone needs to choose their words more carefully when editing in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go away

Pleas edo not post on my talk page. You keep showing up on article pages where I edit and harrassing, and its creeping me the fuck out. If you do not stop, I will report you for wiki-stalking. Please consider this your only warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Admins watch this talkpage including User:DeltaQuad, User:Nick and others. I posted a well justified warning on your talk page. You keep accusing me of stalking you - even calling me a "creepy stalker" on User:Beyond My Ken's talk section "Could you please stop?" (Sorry hard to link, reading the section is important) I've requested evidence but the only response is more accusations. Which article pages [30] have I followed you too exactly? Why are you ignoring the words of PMC? User_talk:Legacypac#Please_remember_AGF Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did I stutter? The next time you magically appear in an article discussion where your sole connection to it is your butthurt about my past behavior towards you will have some fairly dire consequences. Weigh my previous warning very carefully, and go do your thing - whatever it is - elsewhere. Do not poke this particular bear, or whatever metaphor you need to create to inspire you to leave me the fuck alone.
For my part, I will not post again here unless it is to inform you of impending discussion elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is welcome on my talk page. You have not substantiated your accusations. Please do so with diffs. 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

PERM: User:ATZNA

Nice catch! Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it was not me that did the catching. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal MFDs

I would recommend you stop linking (rhetorically) your portal MFDs to the more general RFC (e.g., "Exactly why we need to shut down portals generally"), as that potentially makes your nominations at WP:MFD begin to look somewhat POINTy (and may tend to steer the discussions in less useful directions). As mentioned elsewhere, I also recommend limiting such nominations to just a handful of egregious cases. You have now nominated a handful of portals. It might be time to consider stopping for a while to see how these nominations play out. Of course, you don't need to take my advice, but I think it may avoid future problems along these lines (i.e., actually being accused of POINTiness). - dcljr (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 5 as examples that need to be deleted regardless of the RFC result. I'm not planning to do 100 at once. I see no problem neutrally linking them from the RFC page as that notifies interested editors and few people are watching these portals. A couple of editors immediately linked them to the VP discussion anyway and tried to shut down discussion. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, a fair point. (No pun intended.) - dcljr (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Otto Heinrich Röttcher Barry Ne (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article Northlink College Barry Ne (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrene Quiamco

I think it needs some sort of link to the old AfD, I've never added one myself. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrene quiamco. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is a bot that does that but I've posted a link to the talkpage. The AfD was 2009 which is a long time ago in internet fame. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the {{old AfD multi}} template in Special:Diff/837772035. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Hello Legacypac, thank you for approving my article, wish you the best. Mathias Shaw (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:00:58, 22 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mattklettner


What is meant by "Might justify a mention of East Carolina University, but not much" Thank you


Mattklettner (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Eversdal Bellville Barry Ne (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the review, I will work on your suggestions and resubmit. Thanks once again. Mal. Yahai (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supercentenarians

Every couple of years some 'bright spark" wants to delete this page. Why? It is a never ending battle to keep this page. Japan has one of the largest populations of supercentenarians and is number one per capita. They deserve to have their own entry and we will fight to keep this page open on Wikipedia. Crveni5 (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for recognising that the sources provided on the article I submitted proved that the article subject was noteworthy by Wiki's standards. I appreciate your diligence. Danielle2017! (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

moving portals into other namespaces

Please do not simply move portals into the draft namespace, it messes them up completely thanks to the complicated transclusion / subpage structures. Moving Portal:Eurypterids to Draft:Portal:Eurypterids without moving all subpages and fixing all transclusions makes it appear broken while it isn't. It is not a very good portal, but please do not make it worse. I have reverted your move. —Kusma (t·c) 15:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you should not revert my move. I've been removing the few inbound links. There are few subpages to that draft portal (maybe two) Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been enough people complaining about your various activities regarding the portal space that I highly recommend you lay off, at the very least until the RFC is closed. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
threatening me again Primefac? Well how does one move a Draft portal from Portal space exactly? This one has a single DYK, some links to equally Draft portals and a intro that links to a different broader topic. It's clearly a Draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care what you do or where, provided you don't do anything stupid. In particular, I don't give a rats ass about the portal space. I do, however, know how quick people are to take you to ANI over relatively minor things that could have easily been avoided if you had just backed off whatever it was you were doing a little earlier.
So no, I'm not threatening you. I'm just saying that if you keep it up I won't be surprised if someone else takes you to ANI. You and I both know that it will be a drawn out affair that just pisses everyone off when we could all be doing something more useful. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do anything daft, Leg. We need you for some other important stuff. It won't help if you're slumbering in Wikijail or get a lot of people pissed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving Portals to draft is pretty stupid. There are many better options. Archive all of Portal space at once, de-linking from mainspace. Archive by moving portals under WP:WikiProject Portal, while replacing them with auto-portals now in development. What do you think can happen with them in draft space? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:17, 23 April 2018 review of submission by 2605:E000:1906:C3B4:0:3266:2924:7174

Requesting a re-review because there is an approved article in German and this is only a translation request. Why is this approved in German but not in English?

2605:E000:1906:C3B4:0:3266:2924:7174 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because each language operates under it's own policies. If you wish to move the page to mainspace yourself there is no technical block. It will then be subject to mainspace notability critera. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sophie Martin

Dear Legacypac, thank you for your opinion. I don’t see how can I improve Sophie Martin in the Scottish Ballet artical as it only lists the names of the dancers. I believe Sophie Martin should be an individual arrival as she is well known and awarded dancer regardless being an employee of the Scottish Ballet and I named many references to show that. I will much appreciate your help if you could let me know what should I do next to make it better. Idotu2 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on draft talk. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portals work

Dear Legacypac,

I've been running into your clean up work in the portal namespace. Good job on catching those redirects and other speedies (P1 A3).

I understand you are helping to increase the quality level of the encyclopedia by trying to get rid of crap.

I marked the following portals for speedy deletion (and they are now gone):

  1. Portal:Cider
  2. Portal:Construction
  3. Portal:Cricket World Cup
  4. Portal:Indigenous languages of Australia
  5. Portal:Mayotte
  6. Portal:Premier League
  7. Portal:Spanish Philippines
  8. Portal:Televisa
  9. Portal:Yerevan

I agree quality must go up, and that the crap and uncompleted stuff must be disposed of or moved somewhere else until it is ready; or delinked...

Delinking portals

I noticed you've been delinking scant/crappy portals (from other portals, etc.) that aren't ready for prime time.

If you delink any that don't have Category:Portals under construction on them already, please add it. That way, we can find it easier later, to work on it, or get rid of it.

Just a heads up, in case you weren't already aware of it.

Thanks.    — The Transhumanist   07:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for not trying to run interference on all my efforts. You may wish to reconsider your posts at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this instead: you withdraw your nominations in those. Then we'll see if anyone wants to work on them (that is, I'll ask around). Abyssal, for instance, wants to userfy Portal:Belemnoids. He's a bit of a paleontology buff, and has done a lot of work in that area on Wikipedia. If he has plans for portals in his subject area, my inclination would be to let him have at it. I mean, take a look at his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Abyssal&offset=&limit=5000&target=Abyssal
It's true, he has either overextended himself, or is working on a very large long-term project. (Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Paleontology&namespace=118&hideredirects=1).
But he works on it non-stop. Who knows what part of all of that he'll finish, or if any other paleontology buffs will join him (wiki magic). We should leave him to it and be grateful for whatever results he produces for the encyclopedia (including portal space).
The WikiProject has been dormant for years, leaving editors on their own or in small groups working on the portals without central collaboration. Now that it is up and running again, you could post the portals you are concerned about on the WikiProject's talk page.
We've got a newsletter now, reporting the areas that need attention. I find that waiting for people to visit a WikiProject talk page is problematic, so I bring the page to them. :)
What do you say?    — The Transhumanist   09:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that portals should be shut down - waste of effort - confusing - stale - disregarded by the readers etc. I'm happy to help trim the worst because they need to go anyway even if portals survive the effort to remove the entire space. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could look at them as a pile of crap. Or you could look at the essence of the situation, and see portal space as a skunk works for subject-themed mini-websites and the encyclopedia pages of the future. We've been provided an opportunity and an incubation space by the Wikipedia Community for non-standard Wikipedia pages. Portal space has been exempted from the formatting requirements of articles, and can include graphical layouts, etc. That's cool. It's a laboratory in which we can experiment. Currently, portals have one main framework, but it is not mandatory. That's what most people don't realize. Portal design is left up to the imagination and innovation of their developers. So far, nobody has pushed the envelope, but the community has expressed a desire for change, and there is interest amongst the technos to go beyond. The questions I'm interested in, are: what can we turn these into? What new types of portals can we design? And what features can we dream up that would make users go "wow!"?
So, what I would like to do, is clean up what we have, and explore and experiment with the possibilities.    — The Transhumanist   11:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:32, 24 April 2018 review of submission by Patrickanaylor


Thanks for reviewing my draft article on Dereverberation. I plan to revise the draft in the near future. Whereas 'Reverberation' is a physical acoustic property, 'dereverberation' is a branch of signal processing technology. Accordingly, they are different in nature and therefore justify separate pages. I understand that I didn't make this clear in the draft article. I will try to do a better job in the revision. Patrickanaylor (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King King (Band)

Dear Legacypac,

Thank you for your review of the draft for King King(band). I have taken on board what you say regarding sources and have added six sources from UK national magazines, as well as details of a national TV appearance on Vintage TV. As to the question of meeting WP:NMUSIC, out of the twelve categories I would argue that King King meet seven of them, which I can go into detail for each category should you wish. As as example, for category 11, they have been on the playlist for BBC Radio 2 for several years now. Here is a link to their playlist page:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/c6175350-0452-4bc0-9d15-ba755d0d5584. Finally, there has been a King King page on the German version of Wikipedia now for the past three years, which has been accepted by the editors without any problems. So I hope that this re-edit will be suitable this time round.

Yours Poollight Poollight (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Fairmont High School Barry Ne (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMILE! 23 April 2018

Hello Legacypac, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deja vu

Special:Undelete/Draft:Hearty_Mart naaaah. It's possibility.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article yor declined: Draft:Hearty-Mart

Hi Legacypac, Could you please ellaborate what we need to do on our page so that it gets accepted? JP2300 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a space vs a dash. Thanks. I suggest you write on a different business that is bigger and more notable than a 13 location chain of convenience stores. See WP:CORPDEPTH applies. Hint: WP:LISTED on a major stock exchange is a good indicator of notability. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think a company which has an international case study on its name is a notable company? Hearty Mart is an international case study for business students in India and Europe. People will not be writing a case study and a book on it if it wasn't notable. JP2300 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business is my area of expertise. No, being used as a university case study or being featured in a book is NOT enough to make the business Wiki notable. Why do you care so much about this one business getting a page? If the business becomes notable someone without an agenda will write about it. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda behind writing this page and I am just familiar with the concept of Hearty Mart and so wanted to contribute by writing about it on Wikipedia. It seems that you cant get your head around the fact that someone wants to write about an organisation just for the sake of contribution and may not necessarily have an agenda behind it. Have a good day!JP2300 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:53:10, 26 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Iacesista


Hello I'm having trouble with getting my Wikipedia article accepted. I've been told to use reliable secondary sources, which I have done so in my last edit. I also checked if primary sources can be used as references. It says there you can as long as there will be no interpretation. Initially, I used a CV which was written by the organization that my subject (in the Wikipedia page) works for. I also used his page on Researchgate, Google scholar and in the University to support some of the information in my draft. I really need to know which one in my reference list is unacceptable

Iacesista (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:25:41, 26 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by VickyStarship


Hello! You made a speedy deletion request for mt draft article vTime Limited yesterday and the submission had already gone before I could grab the final version. Is there a way that I can get the copy back for reference? Also, could I have some feedback for the reason for the deletion? I made the changes suggested by the previous reviewer, taking out all of the sections that they felt were contentious. Thanks so much for your time. VickyStarship (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VickyStarship (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin so I can't help but maybe a watching Admin will take up your request Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should be an admin so you can help :p Dial911 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:51, 26 April 2018 review of submission by Greenvintageshoe


Thanks for your useful feedback! I've now added the references list, and properly formatted the references. Should now be ok. Thanks, Caroline.

Greenvintageshoe (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let another reviewer take a look. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) 'LGP' I've declined it also, as the new 'refs' are pieces written by Galsworthy and are not about him. I've no doubt you'll let me know if you disagree. :P Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


16:53:25, 27 April 2018 review of submission by Goldmaki


Hello Legacypac, thank you for your message. I didn't mean the article about Reinhard Gammenthaler to sound like a personal advertisement; since English is not my first language it's a little difficult for me... could you maybe help me and point out the passages that I should edit? Thank you very much! Sincerely Goldmaki (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2018 submission review of the page Ben-Soussan T.D.

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your message. It is the first I try to create a new page on the English Wikipedia and your suggestions and tips are very helpful. Thank you very much, sicerely Pasciutoale (talk) , 28 April 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on South African Ultra long distance running Barry Ne (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diyal

Hi there, I appreciate your review but can you clearly tell me about the section of my article for submission that doesn't have the proper sources? Thank You reply soon and review the article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.chaudhry (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH note

Just as a note, when you put in the url param into the AFCH decline for copyvios, please just include the URL(s) of the websites; you've included the entire earwig URL a few times now and is functionally useless. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok very good Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to this, I've noticed a fair number of your |cv| declines and G12s in the last few days have no URLs in them. The URL is really helpful for a starting point, especially if an initial search doesn't turn up anything. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed TBAN

Hey, Legacy. I think Bugs has earned a TBAN after that, but I'm concerned that the current proposal is too broad to realistically pass. The entire WP namespace includes all Wikiprojects, uncontroversial reporting mechanisms, dispute resolution mechanisms, etc. AFAIK the problem is only limited to the Refdesk and ANI. Perhaps the scope should be limited and the proposal re-made. Swarm ♠ 07:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh, it's getting some support. I guess we can wait and see. Swarm ♠ 07:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH I think his conduct here is more emblematic of a general problem. I'm not sure if he'd be positive at WP:AFD etc (considering his (lack) of knowledge of even basic stuff of V). Maybe allow him to use AIV. I suppose a tighter wording could be proposed/uncontroversially amended in if that becomes a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will see. The idea is to channel him exclusively to content. He might do something to swing the vote before it ends too. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02:48:17, 2 May 2018 review of submission by TheGreatAaronCaper

Hi Legacypac, I'm hoping you can offer some guidance as I'm new at this. My draft was declined and think I understand why, but I'm not completely sure that I do. I'm unsure how to fix it. What should I be looking for to make it acceptable? I felt I had enough because it was proven he worked with some notable people on music, film, and television. Many people he has worked with have Wikipedia pages (which is how I found him). Mentions in credits are what this vocation allows and working on notable music is what the job is. I've seen other pages with less credits than he has, so I'm so confused and would appreciate help. Thank you! TheGreatAaronCaper (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Your Opinion.

I need your opinion on something. First of, thank you for reviewing my draft on MIMI ELSA and moving it to the article space. I really appreciate. But it was tagged for deletion few minutes after it was out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnvna (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iamnvna, unfortunately the AFC process is not a "magic bullet" to completely inoculate a page from being nominated for deletion, it just means that it was good enough to maybe survive one should it be nominated. If you feel the page should be kept, I encourage you to comment on the deletion discussion stating your reasons for keeping the page. See WP:AFDEQ for more information. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Request on 19:14:22, 2 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DunComm


Hi Legacypac, The reason you gave for not accepting the article "Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics" was that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." You are likely referring to the article for the David Dunlap Observatory. To clarify, I am creating a page for the institute because it and the observatory are two entirely distinct entities. They share a history (the "Dunlap" is the same family), but there is absolutely no organizational, financial or operational relationship between the two. The observatory is in Richmond Hill and is run by the City of Richmond Hill and amateur astronomy volunteers for public outreach; the Dunlap Institute is a research institute established at the U of Toronto in 2008 with astronomers who conduct current research. (Dunlap Institute astronomers don't use the Dunlap Observatory as it ceased to be a research instrument many years ago.) The article for the Dunlap Institute is needed for this very reason: to distinguish between the two and minimize confusion. For example, a Google search for the institute will give correct results pointing to our website and related sources, but it will also mistakenly give the Wikipedia page for the observatory (I'm guessing bc of the reference in that article to the institute--which, once our article is hopefully approved, I will request be deleted). I hope that makes sense. Cheers.

DunComm (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the comments on the talkpage. I recall the suggested title is a redirect - if so you can just put your page directly on the existing title. I don't believe there is an issue with page beyond it being covered already. I'll not have time to look at this again for a few days. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Key, Genevieve Hofmeyr and Moonlighting Film Production Services

Hello Legacypac (talk)

Recently, I noticed that you rejected several of my articles because you deemed them not to be notable. Moonlighting Film Production Services has produced or co-produced a number of the world's biggest blockbuster feature films, e.g. "Avengers: Age of Ultron", "The Dark Tower", "Mad Max: Fury Road", "Safehouse" to name a few, major television series, e.g. "Black Sails", "Homeland", "24". Wikipedia has articles on American, Canadian, even Zimbabwean producers that have produced films and TV series that are much less notable and in fact obscure. Genevieve Hofmeyr and Philip Key and their company Moonlighting Film Production Services are in fact the most successful and most prominent film production company and producers on the African continent. I have rewritten the articles, made them much shorter, too. Could you please revisit them and reconsider accepting them please? Here is a link to the company's website so that you can see for yourself their incredibly long, notable and prestigious history of international film and TV production: http://www.moonlighting.co.za/

Kind regards, Mockby 123 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this info on the Draft talkpage and another reviewer will consider after you resubmit. Legacypac (talk)

Draft:Elnaaz Norouzi

I think Elnaaz Norouzi is notable enough to accept as she got three main roles in notable films. What do you think about it? L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my articles on Stellenberg and Karl Bremer Hospital Barry Ne (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Mimi Elsa

Greetings. I mentioned you in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIMI ELSA, and not very kindly. Have a look, please. Tapered (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize without reservation for my incivility. Please keep up your good work. Tapered (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:40, 4 May 2018 review of submission by 2601:5C5:8301:ACE:2980:65D3:7580:5F7A


Hello and thank you for your recent review of my submission located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mobile_Surveillance_System . Your comment stated that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at {Surveillance system} instead" I see that the Wikipedia subject of "Surveillance" exists (not Surveillance system), and covers an extremely wide range of topics relating to that field, however much like the Wikipedia reference to "Home" covers many types of homes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home, Wikipedia also contains the subject of "Mobile Home" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home, among others. A Mobile Surveillance System, in my opinion, is different and unique in the same way and I submit that it should have its own page. I think that Wikipedia users appreciate when they can find more specific information on subjects, and having a link from "Surveillance" to more specific content relating to "Mobile Surveillance System" will only improve a Wikipedia users experience. I do appreciate your efforts and hope that you will reconsider to allow acceptance of my submission. Thank you! 2601:5C5:8301:ACE:2980:65D3:7580:5F7A (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close?

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray, you said: "No "keep" voter here has even come close to advancing anything but a perceived procedural reason not to discuss deleting any specific portal page group." That is completely untrue, as two days before your comment my "Keep" !vote was entirely based on what I saw at the portal itself (and other, directly related pages) and did not even mention the RFC or similar "procedural" matters. (And, as you can see in my comment 3 hours prior to my "Keep" !vote, I explicitly stated that, IMO, the MFD could go forward while the RFC was going on.) In the future, please try to avoid such cavalier mischaracterizations of the "other side" in discussions. - dcljr (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlighting Film Production Services & Phillip Key (Film producer)

Hi Legacypac

Thank you for reviewing my draft articles mentioned in the subject above. I understand that they were declined because the few sources that I originally included did not demonstrate notability in a sufficient way. I have spent a couple of hours finding adequate sources to demonstrate the notability of both subjects. Could you please have another look at them and accept if you think they are now sufficient? Below are the links to the articles for your convenience:

Moonligthing Film Production Services: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moonlighting_Film_Production_Services#History Phillip Key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phillip_Key#Biography

I apologise for not doing it adequately originally - I am new to Wikipedia and still learning.

Thank you very much. Mockby 123 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Often I let another reviewer do the next review. You should post this on the Draft's talkpage for everyone to read. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much for accepting my articles. I appreciate it Barry Ne (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort

You were certainly right to try this (I think consensus for it should have been clear from the already-offered statements), too bad it didn't work out. --JBL (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A shameful abusive close [31] Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for getting back to me about the article! I appreciate the kind message rather than a blunt "that was bad, try again" :) cheers! Lamblings (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Lamblings[reply]

17:53:31, 7 May 2018 review of submission by Aislinn.tucker


Hi Legacypac, my submission for the company Anacrusis was recently declined. I am making updates, but I am confused as to what changes would make our page sound less like advertising. I based the format off of other similar wikipedia pages, such as Secret Road Music Services or Trap Nation. Do you have any suggestions as to what we could remove or add in order for the page to be approved? Thanks!

Aislinn.tucker (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be writimg about your own company WP:COI Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC) already answered here [32] Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note what is wrong?

Hello Legacypac. I am confused about what is wrong again and as to what changes need to make. I based the format on other similar wikipedia pages. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AxxonSoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzretTeberdiev (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Thought you might be interested in the general direction of the Portals WikiProject. It looks like we will be able to obsolete up to 130,000 of the 150,000 pages in portal namespace (or maybe even more), by migrating excerpts to portal base pages via selective transcription. Personally, I'd like to see all the subpages go, leaving just the 1500 portal base pages. We're working out the details of the migration on the WikiProject's talk page.    — The Transhumanist   10:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

over stretched

I think you've over stretched that there rubber band. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soubhik Das

Well, well. That case of interfering with the AFD wasn't just disruption. It was sockpuppetry, and apparently undisclosed paid editing. Thank you for reporting it in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I smelled a rat. Glad it worked. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khan long hin

This was previously an AfC submission bt was moved from draft to mainspace by Paul 012. Is this action allowed? Anything that afc reviewers can do about it? This is bypassing AfC submission right? Plus, I declined the draft as it contains a list of its process. EROS message 17:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is optional so we can't stop it. You can PROD or AfD it or tag problems. I've not looked at the page so just answering generally. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. EROS message 17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There isn't anything wrong with another person seeing notability in a draft and moving it (there is no "bypassing", as AfC is not mandatory). Also, just having a list of processes does not mean it violates WP:NOT, heliosxeros - if a problem can be fixed by a quick removal of a section etc then there's no need to decline on that basis. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)(talk page watcher)[reply]

I actually have come to think that it is a good thing when unsuitable drafts are moved to mainspace because the full set of CSDs, AfD, and PROD becomes available to us where we are very limited with deletion tools on Drafts. No Index in Draft is the same as No Index in mainspace. User:Insertcleverphrasehere may have more thoughts on this. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support Quek157 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:43, 8 May 2018 review of submission by Literarum fan


Hello, Thank you for the time and energy you spent on the submission and for your comment. That is kind of you. In fact, a major number of references and notes come from other sources and not from the author's works. They are from secondary sources. So it would be really kind of you to reconsider your decision. Should you have any comment to improve the page for this author who really deserves it and I am writing my PhD dissertation on his works, I will do my best to apply them. Best, Rastin (Literarum Fan) Literarum fan (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - that also gives me confidence he is notable. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciera Rogers

Hi LegacyPac, you recently declined a submission I left for Ciera Rogers because there were some social media links that were used as references by mistake. I have since made the adjustments are you able to check the re-submission? thanks so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ciera_Rogers

Christinagirgis (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Infant Annihilator

Protection's been dropped. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do analysis because it needed Admin. Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why I dropped the protection. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence if Behavioral Signals meets WP:CORPDEPTH

Hi! I would be so grateful for your help in understanding why there is a possible issue as to if Behavioral Signals meets Corpdepth guidelines. I read in these guidelines that "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." Behavioral Signals and/or its founders have been mentioned in articles in the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other news sources which have featured emotion recognition and behavioral analytics. Companies, like Affectiva who do emotion recognition in faces, and Beyond Verbal, that analyze emotions from vocal intonations, have a corporate page. Behavioral Signals is in the emotions speech/voice industry, as is Beyond Verbal. We want to explain what is this new trend, especially in the age of conversational AI, voice assistants.

I would be grateful if you could help me in understanding ways I can make the Behavioral Signals page fit better to the Wikipedia guidelines.

ChessQueen1 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please put this information on the talkpage of the draft. A reviewer will find it quite helpful. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChessQueen1 - Your only edits have been made to the draft for Behavioral Signals and to inquire about its acceptance. Do you have a connection to Behavioral Signals? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:09:34, 9 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jkclements


In response to your comment: "I already suggested this topic would be better handled as a section in the Skyway bridge page." I respectfully disagree. The Cooper River Bridge Run, Seven Mile Bridge Run, Crescent Connection Bridge Run, and many others have their own individual pages. Why can't Skyway 10K have theirs?

Jkclements (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other pages is irrelevent. This run does not have enough coverage to justify a stand a lone page. We can have coverage on the bridge page and a redirect for the run name. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:46, 9 May 2018 review of submission by Deadalus13


This is one hundred percent my own words. This content is original and appears nowhere else. It is extensively cited. Please reconsider your decision.

Thank you

Deadalus13 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well fix the formating and resubmit. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:04, 9 May 2018 review of submission by Deadalus13


A follow up on the article you declined, "The Kapustinsky LED Pulser" - while the words are my own, I did copy and paste them from another doc onto the editing platform, could that be what you are seeing? Again, however, the content is 100% original, hence the need for the article to exist.

Thank you.

Deadalus13 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Fixing Kapustinsky LED Pulser Article

(Yes the lines don't flow properly. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC))


Thank you for your help, could you clarify? In source and visual they appear ok? Deadalus13 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Minority Enterprise Development Week with AFCH 0.9

Is there any reason why in publishing an article the script doesn't remove the AFC / sandbox tags? This happened here when you published the article. I do keep an eye out on the Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space for copy-paste moves, but more than half of them just appear to be incomplete publications via the script. Cheers — IVORK Discuss 06:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Halligan review

Hi thanks for reviewing my article

The main reason for creating it was to have a page to link to from the After the Fire page where he is mentioned as the current lead vocalist and guitar player. Its the fact that he is listed on this page that I felt made him noteworthy rather than the rest of his activity. The references etc that are listed on his page are mainly there to support the facts that were stated rather than evidence of being noteworthy.

Is there anything specific you can suggest that may help get the page sorted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisphunt (talk • contribs) 08:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and a question!

As a first time submitter, I appreciate your review and feedback! I would like to continue to improve the sources, but a significant amount of the person's work was covered, noted, awarded in the 1980s and 1990s and there are not adequate online links to them from the original sources. How do I manage that? Also, The work was also heavily cited in academic work but I don't see a place to note that in order to substantiate criteria #1 in WP:PROF Again, thank you! SherCh (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)SherCh[reply]

SherCh, offline sources are perfectly acceptable for use; just make sure that you include enough information so that an interested user can find the source (in a library etc). See WP:REFB for more. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Daniel Liam Glyn]] - please help

(talk) Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post comment. Please am I able to edit my page 'Daniel Liam Glyn' which you have speedily deleted? I didn't have any time to see this notification so that I could edit the page and make it more wiki friendly. Is my work completely lost? I don't want it to appear like an advert, it's meant to be a page about composer / musician 'Daniel Liam Glyn', the work I listed for 'Changing Stations' is actually from nearly 2 years ago, so it's not an advertisement or promotion.

You'll need to discuss with the Admin who deleted it. Click the link to the page and see who that was Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Badli Shah bin Alauddin

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Badli Shah bin Alauddin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not so promotional it can't remain in the draftspace. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO borderline. Classic example of where a 3 Strike rule would be effective. Where did discussions on that get to? Was it ever put up for RfC? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, it was, and it was closed as no consensus. Primefac (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging TonyBallioni, since we were discussing this the other day and I couldn't remember where I had seen it. Primefac (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5 declines by 3 different reviewers who gave very clear custom messages. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After the 4th decline send to MfD. The expected result is either Delete or Send to mainspace as notable. None of this "we can't consider notability on drafts" nonsense. If the creator can't get the page up to standard in 4 submissions either they need help or it is impossible. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of drafts is currently being discussed at the Village Pump, so that might not be an issue in a month. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 13 May 2018 review of submission by 111.40.50.8


I think that socialist consultative democracy is a political system in and of itself and should exist as its own article separate from the Politics of China (it is likely you are going to reject my attempt to add it to the Politics of China page, simply because I suspect you people have biases that you are trying to maintain, i.e., that China does not have democracy). Further, your system needs to be able to accommodate the .cn in some of my website citations. Otherwise, the links will not work. 111.40.50.8 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't control all or any of wikipedia. Anyone is welcome to contribute. I have no idea about any issue with .cn Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kopparapu poets

Regarding your comment declining above submission, I humbly submit that your observation--'that these poets were not famous when they were alive and their works were not published during their life time. Some one brought out their works later in a volume and wanted to promote it on wikipedia---is not correct for the following reasons:

1. As mentioned in the text itself, these poets were legends during the short time they lived and were contemporary rivals of another duo poets, namely Tirupati Venkata Kavulu [1] which is also available on wikipedia. As editors of wikipedia, you might have visited this page several times and I as a contributor to wikipedia wonder why such doubts did not arise in respect of Tirupati Venkata Kavulu given the style of writing and referencing is same. In fact, I have given more citations for Kopparapu Poets. 2. Secondly, there is a Telugu post, namely Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu in regional language wikpedia.<ref> https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%B0_%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%B5%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81</ref/>. Moreover, there is a call from Wikipedia urging Indian contributors to translate Telugu or other language wikiposts in to English. Viewed from this point, this post may kindly be accepted though my English text is an independent text, not a true translation of Telugu regional version available on Telugu wikipedia. However, citations and references are same and more also in English version.3. Publishing industry, both in Telugu and English, was very poor in interior India. Hence whatever manuscripts were available, they were published later by their admirers. 4. I am not paid contributor and have no interest to promote dead poets.Hence, I request you to kindly review the submission. Each time a new editor is raising new questions and it is becoming increasingly tough for new contributors like me to face these repeated volleys of rejections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUMACHA2203 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MUMACHA2203 it is very hard for users who do not understand the language of the sources to evaluate such pages. AfC is an optional process so lomg as your account has at least 10 edits and exists 4 days. I'd suggest you post your comments on the article talk and move the page yourself. Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:MUMACHA2203 - I have read your draft again, having read an earlier version of it three weeks ago. It is very hard to understand. I see that you are having difficulty in expressing yourself in English, and that you think that there is a need to translate more articles into English. I don't like to criticize your efforts to express yourself in English, but they are not very successful. If you are specifically writing for the English Wikipedia, and not for Telugu or any other encyclopedia, you might do well to find another author to help you. I don't like to criticize your efforts, but it is very hard to read either your post here or your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirupati_Venkata_Kavulu

Moving Questionable Drafts to Mainspace ?

I will take the discussion from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Behavioral Signals here. I genuinely cannot understand the idea that a questionable draft that has been nominated for deletion at MFD should be taken to mainspace. Apparently you think that such drafts belong in mainspace because draft space isn't appropriate for them, or something. I really don't understand. If there are doubts about whether something belongs in draft space, it definitely doesn't belong in mainspace. It is true, as DGG says, that moving it to mainspace will not damage mainspace, and will only be useless and inappropriate, because in its current state it will be deleted at AFD. So why take it to article space? The idea that you seem to be displaying is that questionable stuff doesn't belong in draft space. Some of us think that is one of the purposes of draft space. I don't understand. Can you explain? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What needs explaining is the stupid insistence by some editors that we can't decide notability on any draft. AfC decline templates clearly say there are not enough RS but of course we can't rule out the existence of RS. The only clear way to tell a submitter that the topic is not notable is to delete it via discussion. However non-AfCers insist we can't do that. A submission to AfC is a request to mainspace and an assertion the page is ready for mainspace. If deletion is not achieved at an MfD than we should accept the request to mainspace and then apply mainspace rules to the page, sink or swim style. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree and understand. That doesn't change the point. I share your annoyance of non-AFCers (busybodies, bystanders) at the stupid insistence that we can't discuss possible notability of a draft. I agree that a submission to AFC is a request to move the page to mainspace and an assertion that the page is ready for mainspace. That doesn't change my point that moving a questionable draft to mainspace is a terrible idea. If one isn't sure about a draft, draft space is a better (less bad) place than article space. Article space is the purpose of Wikipedia; draft space is merely a holding bin. You seem to be implying that draft space is precious and that stuff that doesn't belong in it should go to mainspace. I don't understand that, but, to the extent that I do understand, I think it is a terrible idea. Just because you are annoyed at the busybodies doesn't warrant holding your breath while cursing at them in sign language. That is the opposite of User:SmokeyJoe, who is annoyed (with good reason) at the stupid saccharine wording of the decline template and so holds his breath while cursing in sign language rather than deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying if the page does not warrant deletion in a discussion it must be suitable for mainspace - or at least given a chance there - because that is what the creator has requested. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. Certainly you don't believe that just because the creator thinks it belongs in mainspace, we, the reviewers, should defer to their judgment, because we are expected to use judgment. As to the busybodies and bystanders saying not to delete a draft, again, we certainly know that there are drafts that do not need deletion but are not ready for mainspace, and we, the reviewers, have agreed to use judgment. We know that there are some drafts that should not be promoted but should not be deleted, because they need more work. The idea that if the page does not warrant deletion from draftspace, it must be suitable for mainspace, is absurd. I know that you are frustrated at the busybodies and bystanders. So am I. That doesn't warrant holding your breath while cursing in sign language, and that doesn't warrant moving the work of flacks into mainspace. No, no, no. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC conflicting reasons for creation and previous deletion... need help to finalize

Hello Legacypac. In regards to the AfC for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Up_on_High_Ground_(TV_series) I kindly ask that the use of notability on Wikipedia solely as the inclusion criteria be carefully examined in this case. As you said "I'm not convinced this is notable but it may well be." This is based upon human opinion and of course that's what engages the process of an article for creation accordingly in the raw sense. Over the course of the last several months I've seen editors and admins use the term "notability" loosely from it's meaning to define what they want or don't want on Wikipedia. Notability is increasingly fame driven by how many websites cover or can be used as independent references, but that is based on notoriety rather than notability. In this case the Up on High Ground written article is documenting a verifiable syndicated TV series that was also a streaming series and has been up on Wikipedia for well over two years. Prior to my AfC request here an agenda driven administrator and editor took down a very similarly written article calling it "marketing driven" with no mere mention of notability. This so called marketing material was removed and edited properly by advice, however given the fact to delete it or keep or create it by being too "marketing driven" is not even in your criteria or subject matter to deny it as an AfC. Clearly there are holes in the Wikipedia process an this is not consistent at all with simply placing this article where it belongs in the main space.

I'm definitely open to you being kind and willing to edit this to a point where it is a more solid article in the realm of inclusion, even if it is stubbed down a bit. If you would be so kind to assist in editing or place it there?

All the sections correspond to the desired format of MOS on TV Shows, particularly after reviewing this administrator recommended MOS on TV Shows. This administrator said this "The best way to combat this (and this was the primary reason for deletion) is to follow the MOS on TV Shows. After months of editing, getting advice from an editor, admins, and conforming with the other policies this should be enough to build and maintain an encyclopedia entry for a verifiable TV series. The article is sourced, well written, and well presented material that follows the guidelines of TV series articles already on Wikipedia. Finally just because some references are short or of some peoples opinion are not independent for example, doesn't mean they're not notable. My best regards and ask that you please assist. Techform (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is an optional process. Nothing stops you from moving the page to mainspace yourself and taking your chances. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Fauves

Hello, I would highly appreciate if you can undelete this article, I want to include extra review from Paulette Magazine written by Juliette Minel ( CODIF 04919 - 40 ). John Paul Fauves is well known internationally, been published in various publications, and exhibited all over the globe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia mji (talk • contribs) 02:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that it was mentioned that my new submission is substantially identical to the deleted version, but its not, its 100% rewritten from scratch. There is similarity with cities and shows because it is John Paul's professional history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia mji (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Julia mji I'm not an Admin yet so I can't undelete. Check with the admin who deleted it or go to the correct notice board Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for rejection of my Ray Carr article

Respectfully, Legacypac, the reason you rejected my resubmission is the VERY REASON it was resubmitted in the FIRST PLACE. We had a FEATURE ARTICLE that appeared this past Friday in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. It is reference number 4. You can check the link out here: http://www.cleveland.com/ministerofculture/index.ssf/2018/05/ray_carr_a_cleveland_renaissan.html

That is the second article strictly about Ray since this page has been submitted. Ray's show is known outside the US. In fact, we just heard from Petula Clark's current tour manager this morning, asking if he could share her current interview with Ray (aired last Tuesday, May 8) on social media.

So, the reason you rejected it is in the article. MULTIPLE reasons are in the article. WILL YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IN HELL I HAVE TO DO TO GET THIS DAMN THING INCLUDED ALREADY??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVActor1 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Respectfully, Legacypac, the reason you rejected my resubmission is the VERY REASON it was resubmitted in the FIRST PLACE. We had a FEATURE ARTICLE that appeared this past Friday in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. It is reference number 4. You can check the link out here: http://www.cleveland.com/ministerofculture/index.ssf/2018/05/ray_carr_a_cleveland_renaissan.html

That is the second article strictly about Ray since this page has been submitted. Ray's show is known outside the US. In fact, we just heard from Petula Clark's current tour manager this morning, asking if he could share her current interview with Ray (aired last Tuesday, May 8) on social media.

So, the reason you rejected it is in the article. MULTIPLE reasons are in the article. WILL YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IN HELL I HAVE TO DO TO GET THIS DAMN THING INCLUDED ALREADY???

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ray_Carr

JUST TELL ME WHAT TO WRITE, INCLUDE, I DON'T CARE. I AM SICK OF THE REJECTIONS. AND CONSIDERING SOME OF THE OTHER SUBJECTS INCLUDED ON THIS WEBSITE, I SEE NO REASON NOT TO PUT THIS ONE LITTLE PAGE ON IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVActor1 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CVActor1 - Stop SHOUTING. It is rude, and is not likely to get your article accepted. I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse politely, rather then shouting at one reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have become a single-purpose account who is doing nothing but edit one article and demand its acceptance. Do you have a conflict of interest, such as being paid? That would explain why you are so angry and so demanding and why you are not editing anything else. If you are not connected with Ray Carr, take a chill pill and get a little exposure to Wikipedia by editing a few other articles. If you have a conflict of interest, declare it. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:CVActor1 - If you really are sure that your page is ready for article space, you have the right to move it into article space, and other editors have the right to nominate it for Articles for Deletion. If you are ready to defend it, maybe that is what you should do. That is definitely a better idea than just shouting at a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, First of all, I wrote to Legacypac because it was the suggestion of one of the many pages on this website to write to the reviewer and request why he/she has rejected my article. If that is you, then, yet again, I'm not being answered as to what to do about this in any constructive manner that helps at all. If it is not you, then why are you responding on Legacypac's page? Now as far as your accusations go, most of these assumptions (and we all know what that word means) are incorrect. As far as "getting exposure by editing a few other articles", I have added numerous amounts of information to many other articles on this website over the years. If you're looking for my name to prove it, I'm not always signed in when I do this. But do not for one minute assume that I just edit one article. However, I have been trying to write this article and get it accepted for years now, and no matter what I add, remove, fix or write, I keep getting the same answer. "Ray is not notable because the articles are mentions." They are not just mentions. At least two of them are articles strictly about Ray. And this was resubmitted because Ray has had a second feature article that appeared in this Friday's Plain Dealer, Cleveland's main newspaper. No one seems to have even noticed that edition in the credits, #4, since the rejection message is identical to the one I received on this article about 3 years ago. Here is the new article link: http://www.cleveland.com/ministerofculture/index.ssf/2018/05/ray_carr_a_cleveland_renaissan.html. It appeared in print on the first page of the 5/11/18 Cleveland Plain Dealer Friday Magazine, and has been online since 5/10/18 at this link. Apparently none of you have noticed, which makes me wonder if anyone is really reading this over at all. Why am I "shouting"? Well, you try working on an article for years without success and see how frustrated you get when no one seems to really listen to you, answer your questions or read what you write. I also have to say that if you think I am rude, you telling me that I have become a single-purpose account who has a conflict of interest, should take a chill pill, and am getting paid to do this, certainly seems to be very rude to me. I am not being paid for this, and have never been paid for it, so I resent that assumption. I do not need to take a chill pill. I have asked numerous times in this process for some suggestions on how to write this article, what you all want to see or not see in it, and what I need to do to finally get it accepted. I either get the same answers on things I have already fixed (like the references, for example), or no answers at all. So instead of insulting me, maybe a little help, that has been requested way too many times without success over the years, would be far more productive, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CVActor1 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert is another AfC reviewer - one of the best. He is welcome to respond on my talkpage anytime. Given the rudeness you should be glad you got a response from any volunteer. Unlike you, we have no financial or personal connection to the many subjects we work on. We have a very good understanding of what will survive a deletion discussion on Wikipedia and why. Nearly 100% of AfC submissions I accept stay on the site. In my opinion your submission would not survive a deletion discussion. If we need a newspaper article from this week to establish notability on a musician it is NOT established. There are plenty of perfectly successful good musicians that don't warrent a wikipedia article.
With that said User:CVActor1 - I'm going to watch and ensure that your submission is no longer considered by our volunteer reviewers. AFC is an optional process run by volunteers. As an editor you may move the page to article space from draft space yourself with no further involvement from the AfC project. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste

This was absolutely terrible advice. Copy/pasting is never the right solution. Please don't ever give blatantly incorrect advice again. If something needs moved, then have them request either a technical move or a HISTMERGE. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC ?

There is mention of an RFC about drafts. Is it the one authorizing the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly resubmitted, or is there also another RFC about drafts that I am not aware of?

Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only current one is User:TonyBalloni's one. Maybe we need another one - framed to fail. (Is that allowed?) that clearly lays out the purpose of Draftspace according to some.

1. Draft space is for indefinitely hosting encyclopedia articles on topics where notability can not be established.

2. Users are not permitted to consider notability at WP:MFD.

3. Users are permitted to resubmit their unsuitable drafts to AfC repeatedly forever in the hopes that some AfC reviewer will accept the page other reviewers have rejected. It is like a free play lottery. AfC reviewers should not have deletion discussions available as a tool to delete unsuitable submissions. It is of no consequence that AfC reviewers waste time wading through the same resubmitted pages over and over until the SPA holder gets tired of playing the submit/reject/submit/reject/submit again game.

4. Promoting businesses, bands, and people with no established notability is fine in Draftspace. Wikipedia exists to ensure everyone everywhere can get SEO link juice and the thrill of having a Wikipedia draft about their business/band/self.

When shall we post it? Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Requesting advice on Student Loan Hero

Hi Legacypac and thank you for getting to my article so quickly! I'm eager to fix it and get it out there (I'm convinced that the coverage of Student Loan Hero in the media merits an article), and I wanted to ask your further advice on bolstering the proof of notability.

Specifically I wanted to find out which part of the WP:N is the place I'm falling short. Right now, I have citations to 4 reviews of the site, 3 citations in major media of Student Loan Hero research, and 4 major media outlets (New York Times, USA Today, CNBC, and MarketWatch) that have picked up stories from Student Loan Hero. I realize it's not just about the number of citations, but could you point me to some citations that do seem to support my case for an article, and I will try to include more of those.

Thanks much for any help you can provide me on this! Mike Kitchen (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amswered on Draft:Student Loan Hero talk. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:49, 16 May 2018 review of submission by Shultzc


I wasn't using the proper citation format for references, so it may have been unclear that there multiple independent secondary sources (newspaper and television news) had content specifically about this company.

shultzc (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&oldid=841505361"