User talk:Legacypac/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Legacypac. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your opinion, but kindly do not threaten me with blocking for enacting the logical conclusion of a Keep vote. At least in mainspace it has a chance someone will bring it up to standard, but in the userspace of a long departed user it will sit and rot. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above and regarding User:Akeefe98/Joseph Summer, "kept at MfD" is not adaquate justification for moving a userspace draft to article space. During the MfD you stated your opinion as "Not seeing any notability on this BLP." Yet you decided to move this to article space on 2 April. This is disruptive and needs to stop. If it was not for all your good content work elsewhere I would have blocked you already. I have moved it back to userspace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to move old drafts into the AFC queue (which I can't say I approve of; it's very hard to see it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the recently-reestablished consensus against routine deletion of non-AFC stale drafts), please at least direct comments about them toward the author of the draft, not to yourself. {{subst:AFC draft|author's username}} is the proper incantation. —Cryptic 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand about comments. There is no consensus against deletion of non-AFC stale drafts. There is plenty of policy that allows and facilitates such cleanup. There is a project to review them that is resulting in many deleted and some promoted. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have said speedy, deletion, sorry. (WT:CSD#G13 Drafts for any onlookers.) About comments, I mean stuff like [1], which you misdirected User:KylieTastic into posting on your talk page instead of User:Agravert's with this edit. In this particular case, it probably wouldn't have made a difference - if Agravert didn't respond to the MFD, he's not going to for an AFC decline. Once in a while someone has the email-me-when-someone-edits-my-talkpage option turned on, though, so even a user who's been inactive for a long time can be brought back to the project by a message like this. We see it all the time immediately after a draft actually does get deleted. —Cryptic 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using G13 on userspace drafts. I'm not intending to misdirect anyone to post anywhere, I'm using the provided submit button that clearly says "don't change anything, hit save" or something like that. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you're deliberately hiding these messages from the user for which they're intended, just that the method you're using has that effect. The big blue submit-this-draft button is intended for the draft's author, the code backing it assumes that it's the author that pushes it, and the code backing AFC declines and accepts and comments assumes that it was the author that pushed it. That's why you're continuously getting and removing semi-automated "Your draft has been declined" messages that aren't intended for you - I can't imagine that you had any doubt whether these drafts would be accepted as-is. When you're submitting a draft on behalf of someone else, you have to make sure that the u= parameter of {{AFC submission}} is the draft's author. {tl|AFC draft}} does this for you; the newbie-friendly submission does not. —Cryptic 09:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Since you're still doing this, I have no choice but to assume you are deliberately trying to avoid notifying these drafts' authors and get these eventually speedied without proper scrutiny. Do it again and I will block you from editing. —Cryptic 01:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[2] "Per editor request" where? —Cryptic 21:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No answer? —Cryptic 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the computer gibberish you posted. The feedback comes to the page anyway so the user is notified. As for your more recent question, which I missed earlier. Evidently you can't read requests in English at the top of the page submitted. Do you know of a process for review and comment on drafts in Wikipedia other then AfC? Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, yes. I would have thought that, considering I'd just warned you I'd block you if you did this again, the context would have been abundantly clear. But I'll spell it out - where, precisely, did that user ask to have his draft be reviewed but specifically not to be informed of the feedback or that it would be deleted if he didn't eventually respond to that feedback? —Cryptic 10:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Allowed [3]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I don't think we have ever interacted on wiki before, but I see that you are unnecessarily criticised very often. Good of you for staying strong! MaranoFan (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, first of all thank you for all you do to preven usable content languishing forever in Draftspace. I just have a few concerns after doing page curation of Ross Garland. The topic was notable, the prose was good. However, there were some issues that I think should have been adressed before moving it to mainspace. There were no inline citations (which in a BLP is a serious issue). Some of the information was clearly out of date (like the Spud (film) being upcoming). All the reference links provided were broken. These were easily fixed issues, and I don't mind doing it. It just worries me that it was sitting in mainspace for a bit with these issues before being patrolled. Now there are already lots more articles in mainspace with these kinds of issues, and worse, but most of them are created by new editors who don't know any better. This is unavoidable. What concerns me is that I have been noticing a worrying trend of stale drafts just being moved by capable and experienced editors into mainspace, with no prior dusting up, in the hope that someone will fix them up one in mainspace. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Each editor has areas they prefer to work on. I'm one of a very few editors surfacing stale drafts and that takes a lot of effort. In my experience the pages get reviewed by new page patrollers and tagged and improved pretty quickly. My role is one of triage, not building it into perfection. There are lots of editors interested and willing to do improvements. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is licensed through attribution. Please, at the bare minimum, include a link to the original article in an edit summary when copying to another article (more at WP:CORRECTSPLIT). I would presume this applies to material translated from our French-speaking friends at fr.wikipedia. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 01:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I understand that a redirect and note in the edit summary provides attribution correctly, which I did already. Your dummy edits are another good way to, so thanks. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think in the future, the best way may be to provide a link in the initial edit summary of page creation. Jolly Ω Janner 01:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I could have done a move I suppose but multiple articles should get rolled in and I wrote the lead first. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no noted several instances where Vidatafazoli re-added info that was added Amgood1993 but removed by others. I start to think that User:Vidatafazoli is a sockpuppet of Amgood1993, what makes him a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty/Archive.

The intersection tool gave this as common articles: [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/intersect-contribs/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users[]=Amgood1993&users[]=Vidatafazoli&users[]=&users[]=&users[]=&users[]=&users[]=&users[]=&sort=0]

What do you think? The Banner talk 21:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a lot of commonality and pretty much on one topic... I'll look for more evidence. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Am wondering why you deleted content from my Sandbox 2? Would appreciate any pertinent discussion/WP guidelines/etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It showed up in the stale drafts maitenance category. The vast majority of such pages are by long gone users. You are more then restore if it is useful to you Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was puzzled as to why you were deleting content in my named userspace/sandbox since I have always thought that WP guidelines consider associated user pages, to be under the purview of the editors in question. For instance, talk-page guidelines say that the named User (in the title) can delete Warnings and we can edit our own comments but editors in general are not supposed to edit others' posts unless there is content harming the project or content going against WP guidelines. Heh, last I checked I was not long-gone, so of course I am free to restore or delete as I wish. I suppose clearing out stale content can be a necessary WP-housekeeping chore but *still*...doesn't quite seem right to go into other editors' subpages and delete non-harmful content. Thanks for your reply, Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comments apply mainly to your talk page. We have more latitude in other userspace. For example. Today I moved several userspace drafts into maimspace while working the same maitenance list. You would not believe the number of hoaxs, attack pages, copyvio, and other nonsense in userspace. [4] this is one of several places such pages are listed. Feel free to join in cleanup if you are looking for something to do. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. There are fewer than 250 templates created by Neelix, and about 40 related to taxonomy navigation. Some of the taxonomy templates seem to be OK, in so far as they do list all subordinate taxa, including red-links. Although I'm not still not a fan of these templates; they're redundant to categories and the taxobox and may require ongoing maintenance to be kept up to date.

I find the TfD/RfD/AfD listing process kind of fiddly and annoying, so I don't really like nominating stuff for deletion myself (I've had a tab open in my browser for months now to remind me that I ought to get Neelix's common name redirects to Syagrus cearensis listed). I'd be happy to go prepare a list of Neelix's taxonomy templates with a brief analysis (e.g., complete list with mostly blue links/complete list with lots of red links/incomplete list, in use/not in use) if you want to take on listing them for deletion. I'm not sure I want to tackle all of the non-taxonomy templates, but I am seeing some problems with them. Template:Elis is not a complete discography of the band, Template:English Incumbents and Template:Australian Incumbents are woefully incomplete. Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Set up Twinkle. Becomes super easy to nominate for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got balls, I will give you that [5]. The inclusionists will never budge on their stance that every country in the world must be heard. I've currently been working on getting the Wikiquote article up to scratch. I figure once it is in good shape, we will have a mandate to remove it without "removing" it. Jolly Ω Janner 06:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Compromise never works-already reverted. So back to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that compromise cannot be made for these types of articles, as there are two completely opposing viewpoints; neither of which wish to budge. Also, it hasn't even been two weeks since the last AfD. If you're unlucky, the AfD may be closed before discussion begins. Jolly Ω Janner 06:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think some reactions are notable, but they get drowned out by all the irrelevant noise. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

For User:Skater00/Mafia? Nein Danke the G6 nomination again was inappropriate as the user had been active about 7 months ago. I agree that the page is useless, but the speedy delete rule is what was agreed by the consensus, and is not to be bent for no good reason. Please check for user contributions before nominating for the default text G6 reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Opps, must have misread the dates while checking that. Sorry. I'm looking for other contributions and problems so I do check contributions. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I do delete the great majority of your nominations. So if you really want to continue this sort of work while blocked, you can make a list below and I can delete based on that list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Legacypac. Selly Oak Park, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question at the recent TfD for {{Daphnia}}, the answer to which I felt wasn't particularly relevant to the close itself. A list of Neelix's template creations can be found here. It would certainly appear that they created more than a couple misleading (i.e. unnecessarily short) species templates. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you thought Browning Hill was a decent draft, but I would have appreciated it if you had discussed it with me before moving it to article space; I'd have liked to do some clean up on it, and see if I could get it long enough for DYK. Oh well, what's done is done and I appreciate you having interest in it and wanting to see it published. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Userspace drafts can only be moved by another user in that manner if they reside in the "userspace of long inactive users". As you are active, the move was inappropriate, and I think it would be reasonable for you to revert the move if desired.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Godsy, but I'm not going to revert it. The article has improved some since it was moved, and at the moment I've got real life things to concern myself with so it would just sit around in userspace going nowhere, which I think was Legacypac's concern. It's just that, since I am active, I should have been asked first. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect and should mind your own business User:Godsy. Every contribution to Wikipedia is released for other editors to work on regardless of the location. I simply promoted a draft that had not been worked on for a very long time. The vast majority of stale drafts are in the userspaces of long gone users. User:ONUnicorn's was a very rare exception. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac: You could use this opportunity to apologise to ONUnicorn for moving his draft without discussing with him/her first. They have taken it very well in the circumstances. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not apologize for something I did to improve the encyclopedia, thereby setting a precedent that would be used against me by Godsy (who has moved many pages I promoted back into userspace of users that are long gone). I promoted a 10 year old draft. Godsy is incorrectly interpreting a permissive statement dealing with a subset of pages as a prohibitive statement and he is wrong about that. I'm glad User:ONUnicorn found my actions helpful and I would have responded differently had Godsy not butted onto my talkpage while I was taking a Wikibreak to be unhelpful. Legacypac (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, your response to ONUnicorn should not be affected by the intervention of another editor. Secondly, I don't think your move was prohibited against any policy but was discourteous. Thirdly, I'm done here. It's nice to see you back after your break, but you really should try to be less abrasive with other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I opened a topic about you at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Legacypac. You are welcome to reply there.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Floyd County, Iowa Parks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mason City. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) at Rfd take over at RfD I was just doing the last combine for the chroma key ones or leave it to me you say which mate. Your shift Si Trew (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicted out by the next listing ... she's all yours. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Cracking I was gonna knock off at 2AM my time 00 UTC from the Neelix lot so they all go in one day's listing. Nice to see you old bean, haven't seen you for a while! Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Right I am going for to try to bum a fag next door and will be around until about 2am ie 00 UTC but all yours at RfD. I need to add I think white-berries or a few others to the top listing but it can wait. Si Trew (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant borrow a cigarette. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's tough work - makes your mind a bit batty. I think all the listings look good now and I've voted. I removed one that turned red already from CSD I presume. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey there legacypac, thanks for giving me the link to the 'To Do' lists - sorry if i casued any inconvenience with that page - kind regards,Josh2221 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Have a barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks! :) Josh2221 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If your plan is to use User:Legacypac/Godsygaming and User:Legacypac/Godsymoves for dispute resolution, then I suggest you get to it and stop linking non-DR pages to your subpages.--v/r - TP 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the pages to User:Legacypac/sandbox1 User:Legacypac/sandbox2 and CSD'd the redirects. It would be less drama if you replaced my CSDs with {{Db-u1}} NE Ent 11:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed another editor's comment at this deletion discussion? It's not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggest, for 166.x.x.x, when removing their comments that you tag the IP with {{banned user|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Ban_time.3F]]}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Known troll at MfD. we all remove their posts on sight. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. An edit summary would have been helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you believe my close is inaccurate, you can contest it. I wouldn't object. KoshVorlon 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I declined some of your template CSD's. These templates are in use - if there is a speedy criteria for deletion that you want to use, please clean up all transclusions first. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

They are certainly all fine to lump in to a massive TFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And if there is a huge batch that may be the way to go, then a bot can clean them all up. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the translutions now. Will restore the CSD tags. These don't need debate imho. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK - deleted that one that is no longer in use, if you do have a huge batch though a list may be better than clogging up CSD. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I've CSD'd them all except for several at TfD going solid delete vites. Not worth setting up a bot. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Babak Pasdar a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you have made previous nominations related to articles on this subject, I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussions for Laci Scott and several others currently in process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Legacypac. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your recent edits mean that you are going back to editing again, but either way, after what led to your 6-month absence, you probably need one of these. Welcome back. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. Being stalked by a person now trying to become an Admin was not fun. Being banned for giving some kind advice was really annoying. Will see if I'll edit, but for months I refused to log in or even read Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For trying to deal with the madness that is Draft space. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Just to let you know, the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 29#Obama bin laden was closed as "speedy keep". Before rehashing the same issue, please notify me, and/or look up old archives at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log. If the former, then we may possibly have mutual discussion. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess some people don't see this as a BLP problem. I'll let it rest for now but happy to support any future deletion effort. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac,

Thank you for reviewing my submission and your comment on my page (Draft:René_B._Azurin). I am not quite sure what you mean by a "problematic" tone. Could you clarify please? In any case, I've looked at some other entries and did some revisions on the submitted article based on what I saw. I hope this resolves the problem. Thank you.

Peppa.santos (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Had not noticed until today that you're back. Glad to see you. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
After your edits, I skimmed a little through your history. You definitely are an experienced user, and you communicate politely. Would you please consider becoming Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, currently wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the right, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). —usernamekiran(talk) 04:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Legacypac. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this. It does look OK, but I will need a couple of days to to sort out the references Ruskinmonkey (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Done already. Might add a few details when I find the sources,Ruskinmonkey (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I wanted notify you that the article Henry Elkins has been listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Elkins. Mitchumch (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you? Did you really tag a whole slew of drafts as, as test pages???? LOL.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

After eliminating a 1400 page backlog at G13 elegible AfD (which included a lot of blank ones) I found a whole category of blank submissions. [6] Sorry not much for your reading pleasure! They are either obvious tests of the AfC submit button or some weird sort of vandalism. Delete them now or delete them later as G13 but as G2 they are not going to waste admin time by being "refundable" Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well it's certainly a novel approach.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh look a big SUBMIT button! Let me test what that does... than never come back to type a word. It's not an attempt at an article. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Legacypac, One of the things about reviewing G13s that makes them a sort of break from harder reviewing like copyvios, A7s and the like, is that you can mostly zone out and just make sure six months is up – rarely do I see any that are not. Just note the one above which woke me up as a decline. <snark>Last I checked, it was June 12</snark>. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ya I was finding a bunch that were over 6 month but not in the CSD G13 list. Spam must have made me numb and unable to count months. Funny thing is, that page borders on a hoax. None of the claims are backed up by the sources listed except she is a non-notable ex-model. Will ax it next month. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Spam affects us all differently. You get numbing, I get nausea and a strong desire to punch walls. Hawaiians seem impervious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The most frustrating part of SPAM is that a lot of people refuse to act against it and leave the thrash in place with the argument "spam can be solved by normal editing". Predictable: nothing happens afterwards. The Banner talk 11:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: Agreed. On that issue a few years ago we got our first really strong new tool against spam (indirect, but still it targets the user who post it broadly in a manner nothing else does) and no one is using it. The terms of use were amended to require mandatory disclosure for paid editing, broadly construed to mean anyone editing with a financial stake in the subject of their edits – where The COI guidelines is fangless, only strongly "recommending", but now we have a way to enforce something. What has been done? Nothing. I created {{Uw-paid1}}, {{Uw-paid2}}, {{Uw-paid3}} and {{Uw-paid4}} to try to make a path. They are barely being used.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What tool? And are your templates part of Twinkle? The Banner talk 12:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just letting you know that following a discussion at User talk:Arthur Rubin, your account has been added back to the New Page Reviewer user group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for your help. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't take the bait. I've dealt with editors like that. They love to push buttons in order to get their way, and it's basically what they live for. IME it's quite like dealing with people that suffer a psychological dysfunction. It's quite pitiful actually. Do not engage them or their ilk, but rather, kill them with courtesy and give them all the rope they want. Darknipples (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As per the consensus at ANI [7], you are topic banned from moving any article from Draft:, User: or any other space to main space, regardless of author, and must instead use the WP:AFC system for your own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months and every 6 months thereafter that it is not successful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a list of my promotions [8]. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I don't judge the merits of the individual, I just gauge the consensus and implement the will of the community. I have no opinion, for if I did, then I couldn't close the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well the "will" is based on easily demolished false allegations. As a closing admin are you are not required to consider the merits of the arguments and evidence presented? I'm absolutely shocked at your close sanctioning the victim and letting the bully carry on. I'll have to reconsider my involvement here. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus but missed my chance to comment. If the hounding continues, continue to gather evidence and diffs off wiki and kick it up to ArbCom before considering leaving. With the topic ban in place you've got little to lose - just leaving without kicking it to ArbCom would be denying yourself another chance at a trial and admitting defeat to the hounder. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As closing admin, I can't read all the evidence and if I disagree with the community, then override them. That would be a "supervote". You know this, or at least you should. If you think I misread the consensus, you can always raise the issue at WP:AN, but they will NOT reconsider the merits there; they will only look at my close and determine if my close is a reasonable read of the consensus based on what the editors were saying. I'm not recommending it, and if you instead try to use it to argue the merits again, it could have negative consequences for you, so understand now you can only ask for a review of MY actions there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So this is different then closing XfDs and RfCs... I was not aware of that. You admit you counted !votes while ignoring the substance. I'm disappointed, I had higher regard for your judgment than this decision shows. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, Legacy. It is in no way rational for you to expect that an opinion held by one or two admins is going to outweigh an opinion held by half a dozen admins or more, when looking at the same evidence. There is such a thing as being so certain in one's own convictions that one loses track of what is actually going on. (I should know.) Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not really. When closing XfDs and RfCs, policy considerations are more important because they are the foundation of the actions. When topic banning someone, it is all about whether the community trusts your judgement or not. There aren't a lot a of policy considerations to weigh against. If Editor Bob interprets your actions as disruptive, I can't look at your actions and say he is wrong, I can only judge whether his rationale is reasonable or not. The rules for closing are exactly the same. Closing ANI tbans and ibans are very different only because what you are considering is very different. In this case, it was very clear what the community wanted, and there was lots of participation, and the arguments for and against the topic ban were sane and articulated clearly, plus the discussion was open for a very long time. You were topic banned by the community before I closed. By closing, I didn't decide your fate nor choose your sanction; I just summarized what the community had already collectively decided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy, please take what I'm about to say as coming from someone who generally agrees with your work and sees you as a valuable contributor, ok? I think it's best to accept the TBan. Arguing with Dennis isn't going to get you anywhere and it just makes you look unreasonable. There's nothing stopping you from doing the rest of the valuable work you do in draftspace - MfD noms, CSD tagging, etc. The only thing you're banned from is moves to main. Given that there were editors in there arguing for a full ban from all draftspace / MfD type stuff, I think a promotion TBan is a pretty fair outcome. Just...focus on the rest of what you do, you'll still make a difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as arguing. I just want to understand the process and the surprising result. Obviously given Dennis's explanation of process I'll run any future ANi very differently. There is obviously nothing wrong with my move record since my moved page survival rate is very high even with enemies stalking every page I touch. Just today a couple of AfD'd moves survived without even a struggle. I can think of at least three ways to get pages promoted that need promoted. Requested Moves, commenting and resubmitting in AFCH, and posting requests on Dennis's talk page so he can verify my judgment is sound in seperating the gems from the crap. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not the one you have to convince. As a matter of fact, I would probably avoid any future consideration unless I had strong feelings about it. Right now, I don't have any feelings about it. Keeping a record is a good idea, and in 6 month you can point to that. They didn't say anything about using WP:RM and a few did say using AFC for new articles. My opinion as closer is that using WP:RM is acceptable, their main concern was you not making the moves unilaterally. And I didn't take any of it personally, nor did I think any of your questions were unreasonable. I know it is frustrating, that is why I tried to be patient and explain it as best as I could. My job as closer is to make sure you understand now, so you don't run into trouble later. If by some chance you screw and move something out of habit, be smart enough to revert and report yourself to ANI with an apology. Make it clear you have every intention of following the restrictions. Keep it short and simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

One other clarification. No one, including you, mentioned redirects. I presume there is no issue with me creating redirects in mainspace as I deem useful? I'll also note I have specifically not sought to have my page creations auto patrolled as I welcome the efforts of NPP on pages I create or handle. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Since it wasn't mentioned, I don't see a bar to creating them. It isn't a move. Obviously I suggest caution, as everything you do will be examined when it comes time to consider repealing your topic ban. Doing too much of any one thing tends to make it come under closer scrutiny. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac: some of your actions (particular page moves) in the past have been problematic and you did not hide the fact that you were deliberately moving inappropirate drafts into mainspace. It is likely that many participants in the recent discussion remember those events and understandably took them into account when voting on the topic ban.

If you have mended your ways (and all the recent evidence seems to point this way) then it is obviously unfair that you have been restricted in this way, and it would be right to review this restriction in a few months.

Going forward you can use the RM process, or if you maintain a list of pages which you believe are suitable to move then I'm sure some other editors (TPSs?) would be happy to review these and make the move for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind words Martin User:MSGJ Absolutely I promoted several test cases last year that some people insisted had to be kept at all cost - I did it openly as way to push the community to face some screwy interpretation of deletion policy. Given that we get hundreds of unsuitable pages posted into mainspace every day, I hardly think that adding a couple more pieces of junk broke Wikipedia, especially since I was monitoring them to ensure they were deleted long before being indexed. At this point you don't even have to make 10 edits or be here 4 days to put crap in mainspace which makes it pretty ironic that an editor with 10 years experience and 30,000 edits would be Tbanned from doing something any 10 year old troll or paid spammer is free to do.

Feel free to watchlist this page User:Legacypac/Promotions which I created to track my promotions to date and provide easier review of my work. I've been planning to clean up some of the 400+ G13 Postponed drafts and will post all pages I recommend for promotion during the next 6 months on this page. That will further establish a verifiable track record of positive contributions. The only joy in sorting out junk is finding the occasional interesting gem of a page to promote. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Bksahoo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bijoy Kumar Sahoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In-spite of business websites. I have added two independent sources like

http://www.irdindia.in/journal_ijrdmr/pdf/vol5_iss1/11.pdf
http://www.oneglobeforum.com/speaker/2015/dr-b-k-sahoo-one-globe-2015-speaker and Trusted source like TOI, where the name is mention Mr. B.K Sahoo(Chairman)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/Achievers-felicitated-by-TOI-in-Bhubaneswar/articleshow/47663524.cms

Bksahoo (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

There were a few errors in the way the page was created last time. One was that I am a newbie and hadn't properly considered the style and tone of the text before publishing and had copied across some text to edit live, not realising it was published. The text has been thoroughly written now to be within the guidelines of wiki. I also did not declare a COI at the time. Thanks LJBazza (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll undelete it. Your comment about "they charted" made me start wondering, and I discovered WP:BAND and its comment about the band likely being notable if it had a song that charted. Since that's apparently the case here, I can't in good faith keep it undeleted; it seems an absurdly low bar for notability, but the bar's unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not saying the bar is correct, but that's it and that's why I passed it to mainspace in the first place. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your encouragement on my translated article Draft:Gu Yi. However, another article I translated Tony Chang seems is to be deleted. I'm not sure why this happens, so would you mind to have a look at that article? Thanks very much.--Richard Yee (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ethelbert (whale), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposing_IBAN_between_Godsy_and_Legacypac. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Legacypac and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

And the WP:HOUNDING continues. I hope it backfires, Godsy. The Banner talk 00:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Legacypac, following a community discussion at WP:ANI, a 2-way interaction ban between yourself and User:Godsy is now in place. Please read the closure notes. Violations of this ban may be enforced with blocks. Regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you very much User:Xaosflux Happy Canada Day! Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, please note: the standard exception allowing for Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. means this iban has no impact upon the case filing that is open with ArbCom right now and any "work papers/sandboxes" directly related. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

BizWest Media, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

» Shadowowl | talk 08:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

L

• Cmh02010 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:P.G. Morgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Legacypac, I don't understand your comment. Why would I remove links from the body of the article? Linking allows the reader to explore names and events beyond the article in question, and further provides verification on the topic. I have also provided inline citations throughout the article. Can you clarify? Thanks!

Cmh02010 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

copied and responded to at their talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thank you for your support and your thanks for my contributions on Wikipedia. My passion is writing new articles. I enjoy research and writing and giving freely of my time by myself as one person and donating to Wikipedia both with my charitable financial giving and my article creation efforts to add high quality new articles to this site. It becomes more difficult to do so in the face of stalking and harassment as can be seen at recently closed case resulting in indefinite block of a user. Your acknowledgement of my efforts to improve Wikipedia and contribute to this site are encouraging during such times. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)