Jump to content

User talk:Legacypac/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Request on 17:08:10, 11 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Scott8905


Thanks so much for your advice and reconsideration of our content. I will make the updates as you suggested. I'm guessing I will have to resubmit one more time so that page can become active, correct? Also, when adding the redirects, I'm guessing I will need to wait until the page is live before redirecting the content to our EOUSA page.

Scott8905 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Scott8905 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the title exists at Executive Office for United States Attorneys. You can just edit that page directly. Replace the #REDIRECT with your properly referenced and attributed content. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over the redirect and it takes you to the EOUSA section of the US Attorney's page. There is no actual page anywhere, unless I'm missing something. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I would think my page would need to be resubmitted and accepted to get out of draft status. I could then apply the redirects to both the US Attorney page and the Department of Justice pages to EOUSA's. Scott8905 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Follow this link Executive Office for United States Attorneys which will redirect you. Scroll up and click on the redirected from link at the top. Now you can edit the page. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelical Christianity

@Legacypac: I dare you to look at the most ugly portal on Wikipedia. Portal:Evangelical Christianity, you think the portals by The Transhumanist are bad this portal created by someone else is even worse, it's ugly.Catfurball (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Some strange link selection going on there. You going to nominate it for deletion? Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jaiden Animations AFC

Hi, you recently rejected the Jaiden Animations draft b/c it is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion" but you did not provide any reasoning as to why aside from the comment that it was "deleted via discussion twice in the last year." Just a minor correction. There have been 2 discussions on the Jaiden article (one was in the last year [August 28, 2018], but one was not [September 28, 2017]). That being said, these are older discussions and since then more reliable & credible sources discussing Jaiden Animations have published coverage/articles on/about her. I don't want past discussions to dictate this much more up-to-date version of the article. I want to know why this article is now "not sufficiently notable for inclusion". What current reason do you have for rejecting the article, because I believe the article would likely survive an AFD as it currently stands either as a keep or a weak keep. Soulbust (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

AfC is an optional process. You need to go WP:DRV if you want to create this page Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Not X3s

Hi Legacypac -- Please bear in mind that at least some of the thousand new portals not created by The Transhumanist have had substantial non-automated work in addition to using The Transhumanist's script or similar as a start point. (My unfinished experiment in semi-automation, Portal:Scottish islands for one.) You could always list 'em by creator -- I don't think it's possible to do a half-passable job on more than a handful. (I spent about 3 weeks on the above, and it is far from completed.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean 1 to 2 minutes a portal is not enough to do a good job? Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I never joined the rebooted portals project because I thought some of their methods were ... well, barking mad is the phrase that comes to mind, and that's before I realised quite how many of these useless messes had been created. I wish they were able to focus on things that might actually make creating & maintaining proper portals easier, but that's a hard problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in Wikipedia, currently Zee Punjabi page is redirected to Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal page, which is a punjabi language news channel by Zee Network in India. Zee Network has already confirmed that they are going to launch a new regional entertainment channel for Punjab, named Zee Punjabi in coming April. So, It would be better if redirect link from Zee Punjabi to Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal could be removed, because both are different channels and very soon, it will be needed for a separate page for Zee Punjabi channel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zee_Punjabi ZaxoteZ (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can remove the redirect and build a page on the title. You don't need me to do it. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to remove. That's why asking you. Please remove it. ZaxoteZ (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the redirect for now. Go draft User:ZadoteZ Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add the table, where channel launch date, language, logo, sister channels are mentioned. I know you have no idea about Zee Ganga channel. You can only add, launch year 2013, language Bhojpuri, country India on the table. I will put all other information about channel. Please add here. And if possible, issue the page as Zee Ganga only or edit the redirect link from Zee Entertainment page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zee_Ganga_(TV_Channel) ZaxoteZ (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not your personal editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok sorry, just add the table only please ZaxoteZ (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually...

There inclusion on Draft:List of Irish Academy Award winners and nominees means they are Irish. If you click on the link to their name you will be able to see they are in fact Irish. Schmitz123 (talk)

That is circular logic. They are on the list because they are on the list. I don't doubt the linked articles support the person's Irishness but this page needs to support their inclusion. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I added sources. Is it good enough now? Schmitz123 (talk)

Hi Legacypac. I write not in criticism but in positive spirit. You have rejected my entry Draft:Alan Crossman as a 'run-of-the-mill engineer'. I need to challenge you on that since I wouldn't have bothered writing about him in the first place. I would just point out three things. First that he has risen from quite humble academic beginnings to become President of one of the world's top professional bodies of structural engineering with members in over 100 countries around the world. The Institution of Structural Engineers may not be a household name but it should be since its members design some of the world's most important buildings, bridges and infrastructure. That is why I write about it as I do. Second I would also point out that Crossman is an external examiner at Dublin Institute of Technology - not bad for a man with his academic start up. Third Crossman rose to become Chief engineer of a major engineering company and has designed some significant works. So in summary I would be pleased if you could reconsider your opinion or perhaps refer to another reviewer for a second opinion? Thank you for reading this. Ian.Kirkland76 Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AfC is an optional process. You can move the page to mainspace yourself and defend it if someone seeks deletion. Legacypac (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Asaba-Ase

Hi! Redirect deleted, over to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Legacypac,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please clean up your 'bundle'

All your MFD redirects are making a mess of the main mfd page - I'm hoping you haven't left this work half done? — xaosflux Talk 03:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm batching them. I'm deleting two or three at a time. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Edit summaries

Please stop leaving disparaging edit summaries, such as stating that I "failed to read the nomination" (diff) when the error was all yours. I read the nomination in entirety. You then immediately corrected your error, while not mentioning in your subsequent edit summary that the error was yours (diff). Seriously, this is quite poor form. At least add a note in your edit summary stating what actually occurred. Thanks in advance for your consideration. North America1000 04:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not see the issue in the text until after I restored the CSD. Error in copy pastkng the title. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do, exactly?

Regarding this: I'm not asking for sanctions, I asked for an administrator to step in and intercede in a discussion that appeared to be devolving in to (mostly one-sided) personal attacks that had nothing to do with the topic. I tried to step in myself, and didn't make a dent. So do I just have to scroll past an ever-growing pile of obnoxious behavior in order to read the actual response from another editor at the bottom of the thread? I'm seriously asking here. Nblund talk 04:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You will never get any action because someone said scold. Nothing is done when people tell others to F off. Don't worry about it. Fae deserves a telling off for being a hypocrite in that thread and EEng is being pretty darn polite about it. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know or care about the history between these two editors, but I shouldn't have to read it. Article talk pages aren't the place to tell people off. Nblund talk 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Well it just is not actionable. EEng is trying to be funny amd Fae is being pushy. Both par for the course for them. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Just between you and me, Lpac, unless the thread itself was opened as obvious trolling it's probably better to just let people comment awhile before considering closing -- others may see something you don't. EEng 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I reopened it for ya both. Perhaps a discussion of Fae's participation in that discussion is in order. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Is Drama Llama a gendered pronoun User:EEng? I found my male llama were more drama oriented then the girls. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Then the girls did what? EEng 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you're here, Nblund, let me bring you up to speed. Fae has a long, long history of accusing other editors of nasty motives simply because they don't subscribe to Fae's militant queerness. It's hard to find a discussion involving them that's not peppered with his accusations of bad faith and homo-, trans-, xeno-, and whatever other phobias, and this has been going on for a decade. I've only had three interactions with Fae that I can recall, and every time it's that they've got their hair on fire over some mistaken pronoun or a word choice which offends their delicate sensibilities. I'm not the only editor sick and tired of it. EEng 20:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I corrected your post EEng, to keep you out of trouble. I've never tangled with Fae but I've seen enough to know anyone can be accused of being anti gender something regardless of what one's actual beliefs are. The key is to say something Fae disagrees with. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a close call! You can see in my post that I tried really hard, but I guess I'm still just a horrible person. EEng 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
EEng, I totally appreciate where you're coming from. From my perspective it, though, it looked like you were being a dick jerk vondruke in that exchange. I saw one editor toss out some mildly misogynistic* name-calling and then acting like the offended party was crazy for taking note of it. I can totally see how that appearance could have been misleading here, but there's also not a huge difference between looking just looking like a boor and actually being one. I still would appreciate if I didn't have to look at stuff that appeared uncivil even if it is totally warranted. For my part: I promise to pursue the much ANI-approved route of telling everyone to "fuck off" instead of actually reporting stuff to ANI next time around. *= Seriously. Poll some of the women in your life if you don't believe me, it's a thing Nblund talk 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm no fan of telling people to engage in sexual activity on Wikipedia. I appreciate more creative ways to express frustration. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
No, what you should do is WP:assume good faith on the part of other participants (something Fae has a very hard time doing) and if you're puzzled by what's happening look into it. In the discussion we're discussing, my first post contained a link which, if you'd followed it, would have made clear to you why everyone's so pissed off at Fae; I suggest you do that now. EEng 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I can empathize with your frustration, but there's still no special dispensation for attacking really obnoxious editors, and I'm sure there was nothing in that link that justified your rudeness toward me. It's not reasonable to expect other editors to go digging in to a clusterfuck RfC in order to find some justification for your personal attack, and ultimately there's no context that would make it okay. As a practical matter even being the good guy in a flame war is going to make people think less of you, feed drama, and discourage uninvolved editors from joining the conversation. In any case, I don't hold a grudge and I'll stay out next time. Unwatching. Nblund talk 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the hierarchy of personal attacks, ascribing hidden dark motives to other editors, without evidence, ranks way worse than telling a scold who does that that they're being a scold who does that. No one expects you to go digging into the clusterfuck RfC – unless you plan to open an ANI thread, in which case you really do need to take the time to find out what's going on. EEng 17:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:The Ministry of Truth

I'm not sure speedy deletion is the best way to deal with these. UninvitedCompany 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

129 edits, all to userspace, all in 2006. Not a contributor. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I listed these at MFD. UninvitedCompany 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cross reference User_talk:RHaworth#Userbox_deletions I'm not going to raise the possible (could be inadvertent) IBAN violation except to log it here in case it continues. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
User:xaosflux see my previous post Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reason of declination

My created page Star Suvarna has been declined right now. What is the reason behind that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As the notice says, the title already exists. This title has a long history of problems. I'm not going to approve it. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is said, subject is already exist here. If it is existed here, then I had no interest to create another page for same topic. Star Suvarna page is missing on wikipedia. Instead a separate page, it is redirected to Star India page. I want to create a specific page for that reason. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct the page exists but is now a redirect. You can turn it into an article yourself. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are no particular page for Star Suvarna. That's why created the page. Recently, the page is redirected to Star India page. Nothing details for the particular channel. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct there is already a page, but it has no content. It is just a redirect. You can change that. Wikipedia is the site anyone can edit. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

All provided information are correct here. In fact, no pages are in Wikipedia. If page is not approved, I have no problem. Thank you. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I am new here. Don't know how to delete the redirected link. It would be better, u may remove this redirected link and approve this page for every people. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I blanked the redirect on Star Suvarna. You can copy your own draft there now. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please improve the page. I have copied all information from previous page to new one, but unable to create the table for a television channel. Kindly create the table please please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In this page, a table has existed where launch date, language, sister channels are mentioned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Suvarna

Please move this table here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Another page, created by me, is in draft also, need clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No can do. Zee_Keralam is create protected after multiple creations and deletions. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Again declination. Ok post the link, where I will copy the articles. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Different situation. The page can only be created by an Administrator now. You need to go to WP:DRV and convince the Admins that your Draft should be accepted. I'm not an Admin yet. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply, move the page from draft to a simple page.

One another request, please add a Star Suvarna logo on that page. Without logo, page is looking not good. Logo you will find on Internet simply. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Last request, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zee_Ganga_(TV_Channel) Please add a table here for the television channel, where launch date, logo, language, sister channels are mentioned. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Few days back, u approved Star Suvarna page after all checking. But now someone has given a notice for page delegation. What is happening here? & what is wrong in this page? kindly don't delete the page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on Portal criteria?

Hi Legacypac

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on the criteria for creating/deleting/retaining portals?

I have written a very rough first draft at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, just to kick things off.

At User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal I set out why I think it would be helpful if a small group of editors of differing views worked together to draft an RFC which could establish a broad community consensus on which portals should exist and which should not. This is one of 4 invites, through which I hope to establish group of 5 editors to collaborate on ths one task.

Please can you reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal, so that others can see your response?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Community portal

If your interested pls have a gander at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#New layout that removes portals.--Moxy (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deprod: Soundtrack Your Brand

Hello, I have deprodded Soundtrack Your Brand because I believe this edit by the article's creator was a good faith attempt to contest deletion. I would not object to you or anyone nominating this article at WP:AFD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sent to AFD. Fails NCORP. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks, for once we've got something in common. Portal:Evangelical Christianity to me is ugly and looks like Pepe Le Pew painted blue.

Catfurball (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the ugliest and poorly designed I've seen. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you just denied the page I submitted Prague Raptors I did the changes needed as they were not enough sources proving notability, which changed and I added the references as well. Would you mind give it another look and let me know if it looks alright?, if so is it possible to approve it? and if not what can I do better? Sorry for bothering you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesole (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Raptors

Hi,

I understand and I made the changes. They are on reliable sources as local newspapers (newspapers online) and also sportsgazette UK, which were added in the references. Draft:Prague_Raptors_Football_Club It is a team that started a bit over a year ago and 2018 was their first league, therefore they just started to have notability in local newspapers. I read your message, and I did what it takes in order to have it approved. Can you please let me know if this is not enough?, if we need extra sources or if this is already ok?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesole (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is your sig broken?

I couldn’t help but notice that your userpage link was missing a bracket on your recent bird portal mfd vote so I thought I’d bring the issue to your attention. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your ping

(a) What part of the page do you want copyedited? (b) While I realize there's been some vexing conflict (though I have no idea how it started) I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of a page on the project that's "invitation only". EEng 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just the part I wrote as a draft RFC based on the German model. You have a way of making things very clear and concise. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You flatter me. But what about this idea of an invitation-only page? I'm not sure I like it. I'm pretty sure Sandy McC knows to stay away by now. EEng 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No one will kick you off man. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't worried about myself. My point is that it's not a good precedent. But I guess tempers have been running high. EEng 04:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've done it. I'm not interested in the discussion so I'm unwatching; ping me if you need me again. EEng 05:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sinai Akiba Academy

Hello. You'd approved the article Sinai Akiba Academy a few days ago and then other reviewers deleted it entirely without any valid reasons. (They claim copyright issues but not one word was copied from an outside website.) Can you let me know what I need to do to get the article approved again? Thanks. Egw1119 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) I provided a reply as part of an ongoing conversation about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've requested that representatives of the school no longer leave messages at my talk page. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no recollection of this topic. If the material was copied from the school's website we can't use it. If the school only goes to grade 8 it is not notable. Sorry Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Anne Hyde (Tonetti)

Hey @Legacypac: Thank you for taking the time to review this page & leave a kind message! I am currently working to retool the page, as well as add necessary information to fit the WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO! RegardsIcedCovfefe (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rhiannon Hughes

A non-obvious case, as you implied, because there is no special notability guideline for rowers. However, does not satisfy general notability (which is hard for athletes except in major sports, where they don't need GNG anyway), and did not compete in the Olympics, and (this is my judgment) did not place in the world championship or national championship (competing in the world championship is good, but not good enough). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Multiple !votes are allowed for bundled deletion nominations. Otherwise, people would have to !vote for all at once in only one manner or another (e.g. keep or delete). This makes it easy to state "delete all" for those who, for example, dislike portals, but is an inferior method that discourages objective analysis of each separate page. As such, please cease ordering me how to !vote in deletion discussions. See WP:TRAINWRECK for additional information. North America1000 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

See also: WP:MULTIAFD, where it states, "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." North America1000 19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate – What is that, some kind of riddle? EEng 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. It's a riddle without an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD

Why the !#$%? are we making AfD easier and automated when it is so incredibly difficult to save an article. This is a tilted playing field designed to overwhelm the protectors of valuable wikipedia content. And it is working all too well. Creating an AfD should be thoughtful process, including a WP:BEFORE, but that is NEVER enforced. If you are going to automate, then you should force a NOM to show the efforts they took to do a search before they are allowed to submit such a nomination. And they should be penalized for bad faith nominations when sources they claim are missing, are later found. Trackinfo (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on Draft:We Love MMA

Hello,

sorry for addressing you directly. My article draft got rejected and I could not comprehend the rejector's reasoning behind it. They suggested I ask for a second opinion, but my requests are always going unanswered, with all the others around being answered. I saw you answering another request nearby, so maybe you could have a look?

This is the link to the request: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:13:18,_19_March_2019_review_of_submission_by_Zeno_Gantner

Your input would be very much appreciated.

--zeno (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

AN/I (March 2019)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal Issues 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 on 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, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals

No, it's not in incorrect close. You withdrew AND at the same time requested to leave it running for 7 days. Moreover, there were no additional votes between your withdrawal and my close. You can't have the cake and eat it, choosing the pick the narrative (withdraw vs. keep) that you find most convenient to your own storyline. I also find that your reasoning imposed a false dichotomy. An admin can and will close AfDs and MfDs in projects that they are member of (e.g. an admin who is a member of Military History project does not preclude themselves from closing discussions related to battles as long as they don't participate in the discussion). You stated that an admin in Portals project cannot close related discussion due to my perceived involvement. I did not participate in any recent portal discussion (recent = 8+ months) nor made any changes to portal mainspace (3+ years) up until today. If you still consider that as "involved", I implore you to go to DRV and get a second opinion on this matter. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever. Your talkpage is littered with Portals updates. You misstate what I said by alot. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Rolling back autogenerated portals

Is it technically possible for the 3500 TTH autogenerated portals to just be rolled back like any other edits? I don't see this having been discussed – I assume I missed the discussion or there's an obvious reason why not? Leviv ich 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well they are all page creations, except for the conversions, and you can't roll back a page creation. A thought occurred to me though - every one of the portals duplicates an existing topic so all could be redirected to articles. Since TTH freely admits they ignored the portal guidelines we can assume that many/most of the creations are non-policy compliant. I see no reason the community should sort them one by one comparing against policy by discussion when they were mass created in a few seconds each in violation of WP:MEATBOT. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Question Regarding Decline of Draft:STF-1 Page

Hello Legacypac,

I apologize for the difficulties I may be causing as I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I am aware that I did copy the majority of the content for the page, however http://www.stf1.com is NASA managed so I was wondering if the copyright rules apply? I saw this which made me think otherwise, "Per Title 17, Section 105, United States Code, provides that: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

I can see that it is confusing because STF1.com is not a .gov address, but as you look through the website you can see that it is not copyrighted (including the source-code) and all contacts are government addressed. I can contact someone there for confirmation of this if that would be enough proof?

Thanks in advance,

NASAboi — Preceding unsigned comment added by NASAboi (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Maybe you should join the arbcomm case. I made a valid editorial decision. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You should cool it on the portal deletion nominations. It’s fine to nominate obviously bad portals (e.g. neighborhoods, bird subfamilies) but topics like Friends and Adele are actually pretty big topics and so do meet WP:POG. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for an upper standard where the community agrees that yes this kind of topic is ok and here is why. That can feed into writing a policy. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

banten portal

I am just trying to sort indonesian portals - and the deletion seems short of what I would call a reasonable explanation - would you like to expand at all? JarrahTree 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I provided a detailed rational. Legacypac (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Ta JarrahTree 22:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

article for creation not submitted by me

I responded to your post on my talk page. Thank you very much for notifying me of this error. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Portal:Blu-ray/Blu-ray news

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Portal:Blu-ray/Blu-ray news, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controversial or is under discussion. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Portal:Blu-ray/Selected article

Hello Legacypac, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Portal:Blu-ray/Selected article, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controversial or is under discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Process around Reject at Afc

Hi @Legacypac: How are you? What the process around the reject button when reviewing an Afc? I used it yesterday, to reject this: Draft:Kevin Leyes. It is rank, a pure puff but I'm not sure if the process to use the reject button from the start, or does it need prior review or something like that. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 18:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a newer thing, based off a template I developed off various discussions. My practice is if the topic is clearly not suitable and I don't want the page submitted for consideration again, I reject it. If the problems are fixable, I decline it. If the page meets a CSD (G11 spam, G12 copyvio, or when effectively blank, G2 test page most commonly) use the CSD. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the discussion, but in one ear, out the other or something. Thats cool and straightforward. scope_creepTalk 11:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

New Portal Creators

A portal-potty might be useful in this situation.

We have new editors creating portals where TTH left off. Has there been canvassing at the Portals Project of the need for other editors to continue the portalization? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I was too optimistic in saying that I would take a break from nominating portals for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon I have no idea why you drug me to ArbComm. One admin took me to ANi and managed to get a thrashing themselves. The one admin that did support their position against me, maligned my charactor. That is still not resolved from my point of view. Get back in the game. ArbComm is not the answer for they will not resolve the behavioral issue with TTH after a long ANi on that issue. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
For god's sake no more drugging Legacypac. EEng 22:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
That is awsome. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I was identifying you as a party on the anti-portal side where I happen to think that anti-portal is mostly right, and I was really trying to drig the admin to ArbCom. We shall see whether ArbCom takes the case. Interestingly, it is mostly portal people who want ArbCom to take it and anti-portal people who don't want it taken, but my filing was consistent with the closure of BHG v. SMcC, and in that case it was a case of harassing an admin and the admin thrashed back pretty well. Don't mess with a woman who displays a picture of a statue of a warrior princess with a longsword on the proper left side of her gown. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that Thryduulf got a thrashing, or are you talking about some previous admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
That Admin and another one that said I was essentially a racist at ANi. Anyone that spent 5 minutes on my userpage would be convinced I'm not against other cultures or people groups. I even tolerate Americans! LOL. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian Provinces and Russian Federal Subjects

Hi! Could I ask you a favour? Would you re-format your list here of Indonesian provinces to the same formatting as the Russian subjects? – this just because the close script can't see them at the moment. I don't want to mess with your nomination, and it'd be a lot to do manually. If you feel like removing the Jakarta one per user Kusma, that might also be good, but is not essential (I might re-nominate it if you don't get there first). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only way I can do it is manually, and on mobile today. Feel free to adjust the nomination any way that makes it easy for you. I'll play with it and see what I can do. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Justlettersandnumbers all fixed. Over to you. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, most helpful, that's now done. Do you want nominate Jakarta, or shall I? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jakarta. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal question

Regarding your recent MFD nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, I just wanted to ask a quick question. Is Portal:Montérégie different in some way from the others that led you to exclude it from the discussion, or did you just not see it in the process? It's the same "region of Quebec" level as the others, so I should think the arguments for or against it would be the same — so if it's just that you didn't notice it, then would you object to adding it to the existing discussion and/or opening another discussion for it? Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Same kind of region. I just missed it while assembling the MFD so yes please add it. Maybe it was not on the list I was working with, as the lists are very incomplete. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Books

I really don't understand, why the Wikipedia books I created like The Sopranos (season 2), Hopeless Fountain Kingdom, Dua Lipa (album) and Volta are putting in a proposing for deleting? It really just because it doesn't belong to articles if you just don't like, proposing them whatever you want to, just no reasons or one of them are too narrow? Be honest and truthful.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You are creating books that duplicate other books. I can't understand why you or anyone is creating books anyway - the whole books space has been broken for a long time. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Kindly help

Dear mr legacy

You reviewed my article & it went live two months ago since then I've added news references in english for two more sites but later, someone put deletion notice, so could you tell how is it possible? It has news references of movie & it went live & after two months someone put deletion notice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_786 MemonBhai (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Stale drafts

Just a reminder that you don't need to manually clerk the pages anymore - my bot can do it. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Which I'm super happy about! I'm still removing blank pages when I find them. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: oh, its just the blank ones? I'm working on an idea - the blank ones' all contain "{{Userpage blanked}}", right? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of them yes. When I blank I don't type that template but many other users do. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: so, using awb, if I filter the stale drafts listed in the wikiproject to only those with the template, and then upload that list to the bot, those can then be removed? Its a partial fix, but it would help, right? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds correct and yes that would help a lot. Legacypac (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Okay. Let me look into it. It'll be a while before it gets approved though - I have a number of BRFA waiting --DannyS712 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Conspired

In this edit, you claim I "conspired against you". I'm aware of your allegations against the clerks and the arbitrators, but I have to take issue with snide comments like this. I would appreciate an explanation.

While you're at it, I would like to understand how submitting someone's userspace draft to AfC, moving it to draft space, and then declining it, all by yourself, is anything other than a procedural trick to delete other people's sandboxes. Bradv🍁 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I continue to hear more about how you, in your clerking, decided in your backroom to silence my concerns about an Admin while not applying the same rules to several Admins. I don't answer to you. Read my edit summary. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Issues RFArb

This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I should never have been named there anyway. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. North America1000 16:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Retalitory horse manure. Some Admin with some spine should block you for widespread disruption. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portals by Banned Editors

Two of the portals that I have reviewed today were created by editors who have since been banned, one for sockpuppetry (a sock of User:Venomous Sniper) and one for anti-Islamic soapboxing. At our convenience, we should check whether either of these editors or the sockmaster or any of the other socks have created any other portals or WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I've been nominating based on content/maintenance issues not who create the portal, but that is a good alternative way to look for issues. See also Category:All portals used to populate the Random Portal buttons. Bad titles just jump out there. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Db-x3

I've G6 tagged the page as the X3 proposal was closed as no consensus. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a supervote and needs to be overturned. User:GoldenRing can't count and let their personal opinion interfear with their normal good judgement. I'm pretty disappointed at the massive amount of community time and effort and disruption they have caused. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portals

Wow. I hadn't really paid much attention to the portal brouhaha until now. Thanks for your efforts with this stuff.Jacona (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not without heat from a few editors, but yes a big cleanup much like Neelex redirects. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
+1 on this, you're doing good work. It's going to be challenging getting past the usual opposition at RfD from a few people dead set on retaining clutter.  — Scott • talk 09:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Kent Tate draft

Would you consider reviewing Draft: Kent Tate again? After you declined it underwent major revisions, was resubmitted, is awaiting review. I have no connection to the artist or the creator of the draft. Via Teahouse, I offered the creator some advice, and subsequently made largescale deletions to the article in attempt to make it more NPOV and in line with articles on other video artists. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock advice

You have advised someone checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry to "create a new account and get on with proper editing". I don't see how that advice is either compliant with Wikipedia's policies (particularly WP:EVADE) or good since any new account would undoubtedly have returned to the same topic areas and would have gotten blocked as yet another sockpuppet, making it harder for the supposed main account to get unblocked. Huon (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not realize it was a check user block, thought it was just an old disruption block when I typed that. Anyway, someone should probably unblock the account after all this time because some people mature. They came clean about everything and appear sincere. I saw some of their good work, which is how I found the page in the first place. Legacypac (talk)

Notice :battleground mentality

Be a sweety and dial down the fake outrage and made up accusations against editors you disagree with because otherwise you are going to get a timeout from editing. In fact, if you took a time out from the drama boards, that would probably do you a world of good. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be awsome if several admins would stop copy pasting the same bs allegations all over the site. They make a fake allegation then cite the false allegation as a problem. If a non-admin did that they would be blocked. Then there is the admin that basically called me a racist at ANi and has never backed down, instead attacking me at ArbComm and again at ANi. That really burns my fuse because I'm the most non-racist, globally accepting person around. I'm just going about a cleanup job which a very small minority of editors don't like. Thanks for the comments though, I'm trying to be careful about what I say. Feel free to share your wisdom with the several admins who are posting unbelievable statements far and wide. If you have a spine go block another admin for obvious disruption instead of threatening this lowly editor. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't really care what your justification to yourself is for this behaviour. You just need to stop. Focus on the edits and not the editor. The next time you start up the aspersions and false allegations you will have plenty of time to review your behaviour without being distracted by being able to edit. Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Old drafts - should I be deleting within a time limit

I am slightly confused. Why submit stale drafts from userspace to AFC rather than simply asking the author to delete them Draft:Examinership?

Should I be deleting old drafts within some time limit? Thanks. FrankFlanagan (talk)

User:FrankFlanagan, User:Legacypac - There already is an article on Examinership, which is based on a different version of FF's draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Did you (FF) verify that all of the information in the draft was also in the article before you requested that the article be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts if the page looks like it is within striking distance of being a suitable article I tend to submit it to AfC for another set of eyes, or myself to use the tools to check the title, copyvio etc. Sometimes it is in mainspace already and sometimes not. If it is already in mainspace, tagging as existing and deleting G13 or redirecting eliminates an WP:UP#COPY Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Questions, again

Single Navbox Portals

How do I know by looking at a recently created portal whether it was created from a single navbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a tracking category for that now. It's in Category:Portals

Taratill123456

Who is Taratill123456? They have created two portals that have been nominated for deletion, and that is all. They aren't autoconfirmed, and can't create an article, but they can create a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No idea. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac/Archive_15&oldid=1139244720"