User talk:Legacypac

Request on 05:03:16, 16 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Zvowell

• Zvowell (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Don Morris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request for clarification on secondary sources Hello Legacypac, sorry for bothering you on your talk page; I had posted this question at the AFC Help Desk on December 9, but I can't seem to find a reply, so I thought I'd try here. Thanks for considering my question. You may recall I submitted an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Don_Morris) that was declined on October 30 for the following reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

My question is more a request for clarification. Is it that the article does not contain enough secondary sources? If so, can I ask if newspaper articles that document the article's subject and his activities would qualify as secondary sources. I had hoped that the article contained enough secondary sources.

Thank you! -zv Zvowell (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes newspaper articles are secondary sources. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Supernova-Group

Hello Legacypac, unfortunately I can't find your message you left me at following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Supernova-Group Excuse me for my late answer, I was on vacation for a longer time. Naitsabes117 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow the link you left me. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian Jews

Hi Legacypac, did you really just nominate this draft yourself to AfC, then accept and move it? First, it's someone else's work. Second, it's obviously nowhere near ready for mainspace. Can you explain? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The article title is Operation Höss. I can't speak for Legacypac but that article is manifestly notable and is already in better shape than the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. Why would readers be better served by allowing it to langhish in draft space? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - and it will not be left in Draft space even though someone moved it back to draft. It was up for G13 deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere, we now have two pages dealing with the Holocaust in Hungary: the first a well-developed section of another article, and the second Operation Höss, a short page named after the commandant of Auschwitz. The source supporting the title is Evil Online.

When Serial Number 54129 noticed this had been moved and had already been tagged, he moved it to userspace. But then you move-warred. If you were concerned about deletion, you could have moved it to userspace yourself, or you could have left Serial number's move alone. And if it had been deleted, it wouldn't have mattered because we already have Holocaust in Hungary. I acknowledge that that topic should have its own article, but separating the Holocaust section from History of the Jews in Hungary, and leaving both pages in good shape, would be a lot of work (and any new article shouldn't be named after Rudolf Höss). SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea this is a content fork is new, not discussed before. If really a content fork, as a bare minimum a merge and redirect would be the preferred solution not deletion/move to userspace. As for not naming the page Operation Hoss (the title of the draft) compare Operation Reinhard an related operation in Poland named for an Nazi officer. I think your grasping for new exusss to justify your misguided criticism. Also a little googling shows Operation Hoss is the appropriate name [1] I don't consider reversing a really bad move "move warring". If he wanted deletion he should use AFD. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The source you cite is not an RS for this issue, just as Evil Online isn't. (By the way, I want to make clear when I highlighted the latter, that it's not a criticism of the editor who added it, because that person wasn't working in mainspace. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm singling any part of the article out for criticism. As an early draft, it's fine.) As for Operation Reinhard, that's a common term and topic among academic historians.

Hungary is a different issue. It's an important, complex topic, hard to write about well because it has so many arms and legs. It was the final stage of the Holocaust, insanity on top of the usual insanity, 12,000 people a day moved to Auschwitz, which couldn't cope and had to take to burning bodies in open pits. If we are to have a separate article, someone needs to take the time to split out that material very carefully from the History of the Jews in Hungary. To have ended up with a content fork is unfortunate. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest taking this discussion to the article talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy-Editing My Talk Page

It isn't necessary to tweak the formatting of headings on my talk page. It makes me walk through the history to see what you added, which was nothing but brackets. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Added a link for ease of access. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

New user making personal attacks against you

Hi - I came across this while on patrol earlier. Not sure who this might be, but it seems like they're familiar with you even though you've never interacted with that account... Aspening (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes thank-you for reverting. That is a sockpuppet of User:HughD who I must have annoyed at some point but frankly I don't even remember interacting with the sockmaster ever. They create a new account to insult me every few days. Pretty lame insults too. I've reported to WP:SPI. If you see such attacks against any editor use the ARV tab under TW (Twinkle) to report the user and get the account blocked. If you don't have twinkle yet, it can be enabled under preferences. Makes life here much faster and easier. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep - I've been using Twinkle for well over a year, just wasn't sure who the master was Aspening (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lucas Perri Draft

Hi Legacypac. You've just declared my Lucas Perri draft should not yet be an article as he is not yet notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I initially made the article because an Italian one exists, so I assumed the guidelines were the same (I've checked and they are not). I'm just writing this little follow up because I'm curious about the draft's future: will it remain a draft until he is notable (i.e. can I re-submit it when he makes an appearance for Palace) or will I/somebody have to make a new one when he becomes notable? (Yes I'm pretty new to creating articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkerr98 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Pkerr98, per WP:NFOOTY he will be considered notable when/if he plays a game for Crystal Palace. As long as the draft is edited at least once every six months it can sit in the draft space until he does play a match for them. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hungry Jew

	half-eaten salmon
	I'm half-Jewish and I was going to bring you this salmon for your talk page, but I got hungry on the way, so... sorry. Levivich 07:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Judy Hall speedy deletion request

Hi there,

I would like to work further on this article. I had referenced all of the books with the intention of demonstrating notability. However, I can see this may have looked promotional. I would like to remove most of these and demonstrate notability in other ways. Please would you be able to reinstate my draft for further edits and resubmission.

Many thanks Nick

Nickbaines1 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I can't restore pages. User:RHaworth deleted it as spam. Legacypac (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Re Arbitration//Case/GiantSnowman

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

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

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

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

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

Larry Evans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oberlin Academy Prepatory School

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

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

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

Template:pb

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

Removed personal attacks

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

Socking

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

Admin needed

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

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

Freefall

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

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

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

What's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman closed

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

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

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

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

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

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