[go: nahoru, domu]
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 InternetMeme (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 31 March 2018 (→‎I'm "acting like a jerk"?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Promising draft"

Have you tried just nominating these for G13? I don't see the need for every one of those drafts to hit MfD just because someone slapped a template on them; too inefficient. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wanted to get a feel for what was tagged and how the MfD regulars felt about this situation. Rather not take the heat for ignoring the tags, until we get a bit more experience with them. A whole bunch of the ones tagged are sports stubs that were mass draftified. It looks like, including those, the tag has been used about 220 times. I did a search specifying Draft space for the first few words of the tag to ID them and threw up a selection of ones I did not feel should be postponed or sent to AfC or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds like we are in agreement here. I appreciate your taking the time to look at them; what I was hoping to avoid was having every single one routed through MfD - I think we could get consensus on them as a group either through a single MfD discussion, discussion at WT:MFD, or discussion at WT:CSD. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments on the one MfD. The tag originated with users opposed to G13 expanding. I did not fight the tag, but things turned out as I figured they would - it would be used a few times and forgotten until the 6 months rolled around. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


How did you find these?

It's been a circuitous route. Several months ago came across a kid publishing way too much personal info on their talk page. Searched user space for "birth_date 2004" and "birth_date 2003" as a child safety task. The search also turned up a lot of narcissism so the last few days I've been trawling through user pages for "birth_date" for U5 material. I came across a couple in .js & .css pages which I couldn't CSD. So just now I searched Userspace for "vector.css insource:birth_date", "vector.js insource:birth_date", "common.css insource:birth_date", and "common.js insource:birth_date". Also searched monobook.css & .js but they were clean.

Glad to see your block didn't stick. It's one thing to work through a thankless task, it's another to get grief for doing so. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and thanks Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"infobox person" also works, as does search engine optimization, search engine marketing, social media marketing, social media optimization, reputation management, seo expert, follow facebook etc. I've casually gone through and deleted many pages for these; some phrases now get their pages flagged as spam by an abuse filter. Think of a profession whose practitioners are more likely to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion or a collection of words that are highly likely to appear in spam pages and search accordingly. (EFMs: see Special:Abusefilter/354.) MER-C 21:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<noinclude>

I am prepared to forgive it as an oversight on your part. When you applied a speedy tag to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Digital Intelligence Quotient (DQ) you failed to bracket it with <noinclude></noinclude>. That meant that you had sent Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to CSD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opps did not know that. Obviously only the unnecessary subpage. I tag usersubpages all the time - I wonder why an MfD subpage requires an extra step? Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Maybe it transludes the tag to the mainpage along with the rest of the contents? Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the cause. Tagging already-transcluded AfDs for speedy causes the same problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it kind of looks like MFD is uo for deletion, but as soon as the subpage is gone the CSD tag would disappear from MfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You might be annoyed by the result of this AFD but I fear these edits (while somehow failing to remove the deletion template?) make you look like a harsh douche-canoe. I'd be interested to see where the "dates of birth" you removed are (& where WP:BLP says anything about "age" because a pagesearch came up nix). And I suggest you see consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants before you start making major changes that affect all the related articles --- PageantUpdater (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm not removing the template because I'm not familiar with the correct way to record the result on the talk page. B: We do not post personal info like age (which allows calculation of birth year roughly) of low profile individuals, especially children. There is almost a case to REVDEL that data. Anyway - where did the age data come from? For all we know someone just make it up. C: The entire pageant is a sub-event of a preliminary round. Your refusal to accept Wikipedia policy is troubling. D: If you think coming to my taokpage to call me names is productive... you are sorely wrong. Now, I will keep removing unsourced fancruft on the other state pages and you go follow policy properly. Be thankful I did not remove the unsourced winner names and cities yet. You know we have WP:V. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG? Seriously? Get over yourself, lol. Or better yet, be constructive and start referencing the articles yourself. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, I'm a little concerned about your statement that the pageant is little watched anymore. I know nothing about beauty pageants, but Notability is not temporary. @PageantUpdater:, taunting is disruptive editing. Please desist immediately. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) You are correct 78.26 great user name!, but at the same time, WP:N is not a single event, either...and it doesn't matter if there are 50 articles in RS covering it. Atsme📞📧 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on all points Atsme. I'm not making any claims pro or con about the notability of these articles. If the discussion were about the 2016 edition of the pageant, I wouldn't make a peep. For all I know, the 1892 version of this event is exceedingly notable, and the 2016 version isn't notable at all. My concern was that a statement concerning current decreasing attention doesn't negate a topic if it was notable in the past. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who said vandalism? Look at Miss Wyoming Teen USA as an example. There are IPs changing data with no sources. There are 33 alleged winner names with city and age and sometimes notes with zero verification. Maybe somewhere there is a reliable source that lists all that data but I've found even the pageant businesses do not maintain tables of past winners like exist on Wikipedia. The lack of RS that cover these businesses is a big part of why they are not notable. The pageant pages are little watched and full of OR. Easy to insert unverified info. Those editors that try to insist on sources are accused of knowing nothing about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NR-1 sinkhole

Thanks for the reminder about this, it's been on my watchlist for ages since the MfD and I kept forgetting to do anything about it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good pages like this would be forgotten except for G13 expansion to cover all Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Thank you again for your dedication to finding the gold nuggets in all the mud. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember AGF

Your posted edit summary suggesting that the contributions of a fellow editor "could be made up" is a pretty significant violation of Asssumption of Good Faith. Please consider offering your fellow editors the same civility and courtesy which you yourself seem so keen on receiving yourself. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but people who are rude can be reported to AN:I, and risk being blocked for being uncivil. Please be nicer, okey-doke? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who was just reminded not to insult other editors, you have no right. A completely unreferenced page in a topic area where various editors change data regularly without refs could indeed contain made up info. That's why we have WP:V. What's also interesting is you have banned me from your talkpage but have no problems posting on mine. Seems a little douche like to me. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read that exchange. I was simply advised not to use harsh language to describe your terrible behavior; which isn't to say that I was wrong, but that my language was not so much politic. But, you know this already.
Did you already forget what you were instructed to do moving forward? I have told you before that every time you treat another editor badly, I would fall upon you from a great height. That promise remains in effect. So, when you act poorly, expect me to call you on it. Chances are, though, another editor is going to beat me to it.
Assuming that another editor is making information up is an - frankly- irresponsibly stupid and uncivil accusation. If you are unprepared to offer the Assumption of Good Faith, I am pretty certain that you are going to edit your way into a perma-block. Now, be nice, or begone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any particular editor is making anything up, only that there is a lot of room for made up info on pages with no refs and where info is changed from one unverified "fact" to another unverified "fact". As for "begone" you forget this is MY talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, Legacypac. After someone added something, you removed it and added the edit summary that it could be made up. When you see unverified info on a page, you can remove it or tag it as needing a citation, but you must see how suggesting that the editor made it up is a personal attack. This is the point that everyone in your recently filed ANI complaint was trying to tell you; you need to learn how to think about your actions and edit summaries before adding them. If you cannot learn this, I imagine your time here in Wikipedia is going to be a never-ending series of tragic misunderstanding where you end up indef blocked. I have seen it happen to others, so please - learn. There is no shame in asking for a WP:MENTOR; you clearly need some guidance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Okay, clearly this is not going anywhere productive. Jack, you've made your point very thoroughly, so it's time to drop the stick. If you don't want Legacypac on your talk page, it seems only fair to leave his alone. You don't have to like him, but it's time to walk away. Legacypac, you're well within your rights to remove any further comments here, I don't think replying further has much point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was done anyway. Thanks for adding a full stop to the convo, Premediated Chaos. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage is always open for people who wish to dig a big hole for themselves. Comments about my mental state and how long I will be on wiki are not helpful [1] and could be viewed as harassment. I'd suggest stopping making my editing your concern. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalae

Okay. You preserved Draft:Kalae from G13. There are two copies of it, one in a sandbox. We can redirect the sandbox to the draft, but the draft is still a possibly notable architectural topic in need of heavy copy-editing by someone whose English is better than the original author, who hasn't edited in a year. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Redirect the sandbox. Hopefully someone will pick up the Draft. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely. Maybe there should be a Guild of Draft-Incubators, but, until there is, it will probably stay there, and it will be up for G13 in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it myself. I'm no expert on these houses but at least I've sat on deck of a similar house in NE Thailand and I own something somewhat similar in Malaysia. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DirtyTooth hack article

Thank you, I really appreciate your help. I´ve re-written my article and I´ve added more references. I hope that is now acceptable for Wikipedia. Thanks again. Phseldon (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at Wikipedia creating pages from scratch is very tough. Better to learn the ropes by expanding existing topics first. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts v Sandboxes

I'm struggling to get my head around the different restrictions on Deletion tags that there appear to be between drafts in main space, i.e. Afc, and drafts in sandboxes. Given that both can be, and are, submitted for review, I don't get the differing approaches. Could you point me in the direction of the guidance/policies on this? Many thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you for pitching in at AfC. It's somewhat screwed up and confusing because a committee designed the system over time. Read WP:CSD. Ax applies only in ARTICLE space. Gx is General and are useful in Draft and Userspace as well as mainspace. For Drafts and Userspace I use WP:G11 for SPAM/Promo and G12 Copyvio (including unattributed copies of mainspace pages sometimes) Blank or otherwise evident test Draft pages go WP:G2. WP:U5 is a catchall for all kinds of garbage in User space but nowhere else. G3 is useful for hoaxes and vandalism anywhere. Anything declined by an Admin has to go to MfD. Master these CSDs and you'll be able to deal with almost any junk in Draft or Userspace. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can't really remove a sandbox or a usertalk or main userpage - though it can be deleted so the info that was there is inaccessable - I usually just blank these pages of problematic junk and AfC submission templates. No need to bother with a CSD or MfD unless it's an attack page or something really bad. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BiondVax

User:Legacypac Thanks for your contribution to Draft:BiondVax. I am pleased you agree it's worthy of promotion. Best regards, --WanderingJosh (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Page mover permission

Hello Legacypac.

I have supported your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.

With this permission, you will have the ability to moves drafts to mainspace and suppress the redirect. I think that you shouldn't do this to other people's drafts, because they may have bookmarks to the original draft location. However, this may be just an opinion, there is no rule for this, and you should in the end do what you think is best. If you suppress redirects when moving drafts to mainspace, I would then ask that you ensure that you include a link to the mainspace target in the log, so that the returning author doesn't think their draft was deletion. Probably, there is a script will advise the first author of what you just did, I don't know, but still I think helpful log records are always a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Drafts to Mainspace should just get a redirect. That helps with attribution. In mainspace occasionally you find Joe Blow needs to move to Joe Blow (something) so that Draft:Joe Blow or some new page can become the primary topic. Happens especially when someone gets elected to high office or becomes suddenly famous and some obscure subject is at the mainspace Joe Blow. Andrew Wilkinson and United Conservative Party are recent such cases I recall. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:05:27, 9 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DonnaSaunders


Thank you for taking the time to review my submission on John Stuart 1930-1956. I understand the "One Event" reasoning. May I ask if it would be better to submit a draft titled Stuart Saddle, that being a landmark in the Eastern Arthur Ranges in Southwest National Park, Tasmania, providing information of the area and it's location and how it came to be named? Thank you. DonnaSaunders (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DonnaSaunders (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots of people die, and there was nothing extraordanary about his death. Even better, expand the existing article on the national park to cover features, briefly noting why a feature is named after this person, using a good reference. Expanding existing pages is always a better way to start on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your recent efforts at WP:ANI in the interests of conflict resolution. Whatever happens, your proposals are good and getting one side to agree straight away is an achievement. Prince of Thieves (talk) 05:37, 13 March 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]

Paper Mario (series)

So what do I do? (or what do you want me to do?) Ramesty (talk) 17:06, 15 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.[[2]] 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]

Hydroelectric Cell

See my most recent comments. It's even worse than I had first indicated. The energy comes from the reaction of the zinc with the water. But the zinc isn't found in the mines in the form of the metal. Zinc ore is typically zinc sulfide. Energy is needed to separate the zinc from the sulfur, or from whatever the zinc is combined with. The sulfur is an environmental concern. If it is burned off, it becomes sulfur dioxide, which in turn mixes with water vapor and oxygen to produce sulfuric acid, which rains out as acid rain. In modern times it is scrubbed out to minimize the acid rain, and that requires energy. Zinc oxide or zinc carbonate or zinc silicate as ores are no improvement, because it still takes energy to smelt the zinc from the ore. I am beginning to think that the project may be basically a con game, designed to sell stock to investors who don't realize that the basic premise violates the first law of thermodynamics. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember a little of the math and most of the chemistry that I learned 50 years ago.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which would explain his strong desire to get it in Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that in section of hydroelectric cell, as per the published article and book chapter it is not creating energy due to transformation or zinc from its ore or production of some acid, it is chemidissociation of water molecule, due to existence of high order of fields in the structure. i agree that equation may not justify that effect, but thats where i seek help from others to contribute. This work was part of research from Indian national lab and has been accepted international, and peer reviewed by scientific group. ved (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC) ved_varun[reply]

User:Ved varun - No. The energy is coming from the zinc. That is seen on viewing the equations. The chemodissociation of the water is merely liberating the chemical potential energy that was invested when then zinc was smelted. Either you can accept the analysis based on the equations, or you can explain how the first law of thermodynamics is being violated. Water is a relatively stable chemical species that can be chemodissociated in the presence of a material that reacts with it. Metallic zinc, like many free metals, reacts with water. The amount of energy available is limited by the supply of the metals, which is limited by the energy invested in smelting the metals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:31:26, 19 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by ElHoggo


I received this message, after an original one saying my entry for Playfusion needed independent references. All I want to do is have a company entry that simply says who we are and what we do. I have absolutely no idea why you keep rejecting this. My references are independent and reliable.

Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.


Please tell me what this message means in the context of a very simple company entry. What significant covereage? Of what? Why are the soruc es not reliable? And as you can see they are totally independent. I am at complete loss to understand what I have to do to create such a simple page.

ElHoggo (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First User:ElHoggo you should not be writing about your own company - see WP:COI. If it is WP:Notable some independant editor will write about it. See WP:42 Legacypac (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Gayatri Nair

Firstly, the amount of effort and time you put into Wikipedia to have updated information for normal users/editors like me is incredible and truly appreciated.

Regarding an article that I keep an eye, you nominated for deletion recently Gayatri Nair, I've updated the article with multiple independent sources including national newspapers like The Sun, TV & Showbiz web portals like DigitalSpy, RadioTimes & Tellymix, and link to ITV (TV channel) the biggest TV Channel in the UK.

Nair is a semifinalist in The Voice UK (series 7) competition. This TV show has a viewership of more than 5 million every Saturday. For your reference, I've included some links directly here (also included in the page in the correct format)

Link: ITV & The VOICE

ITV: The Voice UK YouTube link

ITV Web: https://www.itv.com/thevoice/singers/gayatri-nair

Links to articles in independent national news sites and TV/Showbiz sites

The Voice UK's Gayatri Nair has Jennifer Hudson in tears with Greatest Showman cover

The Voice UK's Gayatri Nair stuns with 'This Is Me' Greatest Showman cover

Gayatri Nair from Team Jennifer Hudson who made it through the Knockouts to the live Semi Finals

Thanks in advance for looking into this Simonekent (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC]] does give consideration to winners and finalists in major competitions. Best to make your comments on the AfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, first second and third place do count. But the final has 12 people in it, hence my comments. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not citing just The Sun, but multiple independent sources for articles. Regarding following the rules I understand your concern - Section 9 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles - Winning, runnerup or 3rd place. I agree to that, but I'm referring to Section 1 - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician , Section 10 - Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show and Section 12 - Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network

UK Voice final only has 4 contestants & Semifinal has 8 contestants - In 2017, the contestant in 4th place got a better recording contract than the winner Simonekent (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there are only four finalists then it would seem logical to consider 3 & 4 to have joint third place and establish notability that way. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Florida Custom Carts Article

Hi legacypac,

I noticed you deleted my article. I saw why you deleted it, but I am still confused. The topic I wrote about, North Florida Custom Carts, is my parents golf cart business and I made sure not to promote it in the article to avoid deletion. If there are any specific sentences I can remove to make it acceptable to be posted, please let me know. Do you have an email so I can email you regarding this topic for further information? Thank you. I am also new to wikipedia so I am still trying to figure it out. Thanks again


Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taytaynoony (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your family's business. While it looks like a fine business it fails to meet our WP:N or WP:42 and read WP:COI. I encourage you to contribute to existing topics you are not part of. Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I understand, although I was not intentionally promoting their business. I was purposely explaining the history of it to avoid deletion. I am doing this as a school project and only need it up for two weeks so that my teacher can grade it, then you are free to delete it. Is that okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taytaynoony (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How do I do that? Should I just try republishing it? Thanks again.

Absolutely do not republish it. Wikipedia sees such content as SPAM. It will be deleted quickly and you may even be blocked. If you have the text offline there is nothing anyone here needs to do. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what do I do to allow it to be viewed by whomever? I do not know how to use wikipedia but do not want to rewrite this assignment. Could you email me for help on what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taytaynoony (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Taytaynoony, I've left you a message on your talk page. I have admin status so I can view and email you your text if you want it. Could you please respond there? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I did not edit this. I made this with my hard work. what is wrong with my article?

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]

Speedying drafts

Is there a reason that you are mass speedying drafts at the moment? I've only clicked on a handful but a couple look possibly salvageable if only anyone could be found to work on them, especially Draft:Daniel M. Albert whose subject seems clearly notable. ETA Some of these have been reviewed only in the past 24–48 hours; the creator deserves a reasonable window of time to attempt to improve in all but the most hopeless of cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly User:Legacypac/CSD_log mass speedy different types of a pages while looking for the occasional useful thing. Currently I'm working Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement which I intend to clear out. If you are looking for pages with a better chance of containing useful info there is Category:AfC submissions declined as needing to be merged and a list of postponed G13 pages I'll find a link too. [[:Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this underlines the fact that AfC is where articles go to die. In mainspace some at least of these would have reached editors who might have worked successfully on them. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We accept many articles but many rejects are just absolute spam by COI and paid editors amd other problem pages. I cleared out the attack pages earlier today for example. AfC serves as a gatekeeper to hold out crap and a good place for new good faith and IP editors to develop legitimately written topics with a little guidence. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

too many

I have never really liked the tactic of nominating dozens of problematic drafts (or articles) for deletion, especially by a criterion like G11 that takes judgement. No human will have the patience to deal with them properly. I did a sample of your G11 AfCs, focusing on ones I could tell from the title or the popup might be of some interest. I deleted many, removed the tag from a few usually fixing them a little, and left most for others. Since I tried to get everything that I guessed might be rescuable, that might come to about 10 to 20 % of those you nominated. That is not in my opinion too high an error rate for something with variable standards, but you might have done better to have spread them out a little--especially because there are still some admins who faced with something like this will just delete them all without actually looking at them. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every nom came from AfD declines as an Advert - so reflect some other editor(s) opinion. Evidently our AfC reviewing is too strict, which matches what User:Insertcleverphrasehere and I estimated was the case in a recent experiment. The next batch I'm going to go a lot easier on now that I've proved that AfC declines for Advertising are somewhat more strict than G11. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I snatched back ~11, looking only at the bios in my very limited subject areas. I'm quite worried about this wrt the ongoing RfC about the ACTRIAL. The standard for promotional that seems to have been enforced during the trial is very much stricter than enforced by the NPP; many of those you have to wash your eyes out with bleach after reading. A proportion of these on superficial scan only need relatively minor work on the tone, slimming down obviously non-encyclopedic material, and the like. In mainspace I find it's nearly always quicker and easier to do it yourself than try to get the original creator to do it, at least where sources are freely online & in English. Wikiprojects can also provide specialist help. These drafts are just stuck in limbo until they get deleted. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything changed in AfC standards during the last 6 months. I strongly believe we should accept and tag for improvement more pages that have non-fatal flaws. Feeding a batch of declined as advert pages to G11 just proved AfC is declining to aggressively. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and before anyone thinks badly - nearly all of these would have been G13 sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you may be better off letting these get to G13. I've found that bulk G11's may rub some people the wrong way, but YMMV. -FASTILY 08:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still unclear what the rush is. G13 exists for a reason, what's the need to preempt it? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.:::::::::If a page is G11 and full of spam links for example, it's better to get rid of it sooner than later. Removing hopeless spam cuts down on resubmissions at AfC which reduces the backlog there. Some pages are getting resubmitted 10 times. When evaluating G13ables I always try to tag with G11 or G2 if applicable to remove the REFUND option. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But slow down

I have just deleted several of your speedy tags on drafts. I think in every case they were at least a few weeks stale so I was happy to delete them. Just one request: please keep your eye on CAT:CSD and when it gets to around 200 pages, please go away and do something else until us poor admins have time to catch up! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion page Draft: Edwin van der Heide

Hello! Thanks for having a look at the article I submitted for creation. You only checked the first paragaraph and saw too much coincidence. I may say, this is an usual format for art historians to give data on an artist: name, when and where born, disciplines and fields of activity. It may have coincidences with another website, but it is a standard formula to give basic, objective data. A lot of work has gone into the rest of the article, and the notability question has been cleared up, so I think this article would be a good contribution for the wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you would have a look at it. Furthermore, the article has already been deleted and I hope this can be undone. Of course I am open to change the first paragraph. I am looking forward for your reply and your tips. Thank you! Artmus25 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin and can't check a deleted page. It has been twice deleted for copyright infringement. You MUST not copy other websites - you must write pages in your own words, based on WP:RS Some Admins watch my page though so hopefully someone will respond to your request, but I'm pretty sure it will not be undeleted. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply! Not that I want to deepen into a discussion, but I shared actual information without copying, and studying and indicating a lot of references. The first sentences are just information data with not much space for creativity, but it doesn't mean it is a copy, and the rest of the article is all original work. I hope indeed that an admin will see this discussion. Best! Artmus25 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Artmus25 would you please reply to the conflict of interest inquiry I left on your talk page in this diff? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You left a message on my talk page containing two links both in the wrong format - one, curiously, pointing to the draft_talk page rather than the draft itself. In your message on this page you did not even attempt to provide any link. Please read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:23, 24 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]

OK

I'll move it on to its own page.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO. I mean the section is big enough. Stop obsessing with it and work on some other topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wow - all caps(!) OK then assuming good faith, I'll presume uv no conflict of interests but are just too harried to address minor wp:Weight or wp:NPOV (if any!) w/ur own fixes.. That's cool! That said, if u decide to go ahead and broach a more precise description of whatever might be your concerns (and I'm genuinely confused, from ur cmt above, what these might be), it'd be very much appreciated. (I'll presume ud not go so far as to probide me diffs tho that'd be so really cool, too. :-) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no Conflict of interest. I just handled the page through AfC. Never heard of the subject before. I do have a good grasp of the WP:BLP policy. Excessive detail on an allegation of sexual misconduct is not good. From what I read it is only a backrub and he was not charged with a crime? We don't give 50% of an article to one issue when the subject had a long career in academic administration. We don't need a seperare page on it when the entire article is so short. That is why someone else immediately sought deletion on your new page. I was not trying to tell you to make another page.

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Heather Dorak

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Heather Dorak, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not G11 stuff. Thank you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Hittman (Band)

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Hittman (Band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not G11 stuff. Thank you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Heather Howitt

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Heather Howitt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not G11 stuff. Thank you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Draft:GUR (Game)

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:GUR (Game), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not G11 stuff.Has merits. Thank you. ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was G12 Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea.I don't check for suitability of other criterion, whilst declining a tagging, sans G3 et al.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:22, 26 March 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]

Draft:Tom Pitts

Thanks for your review of this resubmission. I was somewhat surprised to see your remark about inline sourcing, because I used nine such sources. It's possible that the position of the External Links section overshadowed them. I therefore removed it -- it was redundant anyway.

I also found some more spots that I supported with sourcing.

Do you think you could have another look in Drafts, please, or should I resubmit? Rory1262 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:18, 27 March 2018 review of submission by Mayon4320


Hello, Good Day. I'm approaching you to re-review my article. Now I already fixed the details that I need to fix. Thank you. Mayon4320 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Username

hello, please i need your help for change of username. my username reveals everything about me as it is also my official name. i would love if you'd guide me through the required steps as pertains to the change of my username. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshiomaMedi (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @AshiomaMedi: See WP:CHU. All the instructions are there. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thanks for the help AshiomaMedi (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

I am genuinely curious what led to this sequence of events, i.e. you nominating the page for G11 and then turning right around and accepting it. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did not note an Admin said it was not promotional between those events. Part of the test discussed at "too many". Proved there is a disconnect between AfC "Advert" declines and G11 admin standards. Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that an admin declined to delete the page, but if you're nominating the page for deletion then you must be assuming that it's overly promotional and should be deleted. If it's so promotional that you feel it should be deleted, why would you then immediately turn around and promote it to mainspace? Primefac (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated a batch of pages that other editors had rejected as being promotional. You are well aware of the problems in AfC where notable topic are rejected inappropriately and you are well aware I feel we should put notable topics in mainspace even if they are not perfect so they can be improved by the big pool of editors out there. You are also aware that reviewers who mainspace pages after other reviewers declare them promotional get hassled. If you feel the page if too promotional and can't be fixed afd it. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the general issues at AFC or your own personal preferences, and entirely with me wondering why if you think a page is acceptable you'd bother G11'ing it. As near as I can tell, either the nomination or the acceptance was done simply to prove a point, and I was attempting to determine which one it was. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You posting here is trying to prove a point in your continued campaign to have me sanctioned. The survival rate on my promotions is very high. The acceptance rate on my CSDs is very high. I'm trying to determine which activity you are trying to malign today? Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to malign anything, and I have no interest in getting you sanctioned. The above edit string was brought to my attention, and I wondered why you had done it, because to me the sequence of events made no sense. I'm not out to get you, I don't have some "which edit of Legacy's will we complain about today" list, and I think I've looked at your contribs maybe once in the last two weeks. If I see something odd, I look into it, end of story.
I'm also not sure why it's apparently only me who is doing this maligning, given that there are four admins in the above sections who are raising similar questions. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained how I ran the test and why I ran the test several times already. I just explained it again here [4]

Now can you look into this editor [5] who does not want to explain why he is calling my editomg disruptive and threatening another editor with blocks on a DS article? I'd like to introduce a little bit of criticism on the Smith and Wesson page which reads like pure advertising as is. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors warned. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

User:Legacypac - I am confused. I really don't have a clue what the issue is. My confusion isn't with User:Primefac, only with User:Legacypac. I really still don't understand about moving something to article space and then tagging it for deletion. I don't see how moving something from anywhere other than article space into article space and then tagging it for any deletion process, whether CSD or PROD or AFD, makes sense. If something doesn't belong in outward-facing article space, just don't put it there, not to use an article space procedure, not to test something, not to make a point. Just don't put something in article space that you don't think belongs in article space. Maybe you can explain exactly when you think that stuff that doesn't belong in article space should be put in article space and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you, User:Legacypac, act as a janitor of draft space, a service that is usually much appreciated. But if stuff isn't fit for draft space, don't bring it into article space to argue about; the only question then is whether to leave it in draft space or demote it to a bit bucket. Do we need something new called subdraft space? I don't think so. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come here to quarrel. If any editor is trying to start a quarrel, it may be User:Legacypac; I don't see any quarrelsomeness on the part of User:Primefac, and I do think that User:Legacypac owes an apology to User:Primefac. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused Robert. I did not send anything to mainspace to have it deleted. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was confused. Maybe you can explain, unless you are really trying to provoke User:Primefac into picking a quarrel with you. You did tag Haroon Janjua for G11. When the G11 was declined, you sent it to mainspace. At least that is how I read it. It is true that you didn't tag it for deletion when in article space. However, you did send a page that you had previously thought was spam into article space. In any case, I certainly don't see why you accused Primefac of trying to set you up or whatever. It does look more like you were trying to clean out draft space by moving stuff to anywhere else, first to delete it, and, if that didn't work, to mainspace it. Maybe you and I have different ideas, but I think that anything that is questioned in draft space doesn't belong in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[6] and you might also notice when someone else AfD'd the page brought up I've defended its existence though I might be voted down it seems. I don't think we have different ideas very often, and I think we can agree that not every page is correctly handled at AfC. If I wanted the page deleted after it was judged non-Advertisement I would have used MfD or waited to G13. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 28 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 [7] 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]

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]

Request on 07:10:18, 30 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by WPH Haami


I want's change My User Page Name. Currently My user name Is WPH Haami. So Now I Want's To Change this User Name and new user name is Haami123. Is it realiabe to Wikipedia? WPH Haami (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[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]

I'm "acting like a jerk"?

Hi there,

I appreciate that you're trying to help resolve a conflict, but how do you justify saying that I was "Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk as well."? I've been making an effort to be reasonable throughout the dispute, and I've never insulted the other user, despite him insulting me on multiple occasions.

I don't think it's at all appropriate to call someone a jerk when you're ostensibly acting as a mediator.

Regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&oldid=833355680"