User talk:Legacypac

Note

If you are seeing any article at AFC, wothry of accept, just mainspace it, probably with a note to the decliner(s).~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Love to but some editors object to my 90%+ survival rate on mainspacing found abandoned or AfC articles. My ability to identify AfD proof topics is as good as anyone's but currently anyone with 10 edits can put anything in mainspace but "the community" does not trust me. Incredibly stupid and imsulting. Maybe you want to fix that User:Winged Blades of Godric.Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (which does happen occasionally) your six-month-minimum for appealing is over, so you're welcome to ask for the sanction to be lifted. If you do indeed have a 90% acceptance rate for drafts you submit yourself, I'd say it demonstrates you know what you're doing, and I'd likely support such a request. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It needs some updates (page status keeps changing) User:Legacypac/Promotions shows that even after incredibly nasty attacks and lies at ANi and having my moves and creations scrutinized by multiple users my move survival rate is pretty solid. Anyone that says I can't be trusted to move pages better be prepared to prove their track record is better. Further I was banned from creating pages even though no one produced any evidence there is any issue with my page creations - which was pure punishment from whoever the closing Admin was. Yes it's a sore point for me. I put a lot of time into building a better resource for the world yet lies and falsehoods were used to restrict my freedoms. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said, you're welcome to request the restriction be lifted. Personally, I would leave out the vitriolic adverbs, but that's just me. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I just had a read through [1]. The abuse thrown at me was very unacceptable. Later events bear out the inapropriateness of how I was treated:

1. One participant lost their Admin bit partly for their attacks against me in that thread and their related actions messing with my user permissions.
2. The threatened ArbComm case filed against me failed spectacularly.
3. I eventually got the interaction ban I was seeking (unfortunately it was two way)

I'd prefer someone else seek the listing of the restriction imposed by User:Dennis Brown. If I have to do it I'll need to update my User:Legacypac/Promotions page. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep in mind, I did not impose those sanctions directly. All I did was close the discussion and determine consensus, then "declare" the will of the community. I didn't get enough into the details to form my own opinions. Of course, had I, then I wouldn't have been able to close it due to bias. If you want to appeal, and it would seem you are eligible, I would offer the advice (that you already know) of putting all ideas aside on the fairness and simply focus on demonstrating that the merits no longer apply. You do know the drill for a successful appeal. Not my rules, just the reality here. Politely and unemotionally pointing out misconceptions is fair game in moderation. Again, you know all this. I don't have an opinion on it at this time, but I do think everyone deserves a fair appeal, and you aren't an exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The two way IBAN I was saddled with also impedes me engaging in a full discussion on appealing the move/creation restriction. I don't know why I even bother. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how your current IBAN would impact your AFC TBAN, and even if it did for some odd reason WP:BANEX lists appeals as a reason for breaking the strict "no mention" rules. But hey, you seem dead-set on just whinging instead, so I'll leave you be. I would ask, though, that if you're not going to appeal, stop complaining about the ban. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll appeal it but with all the evidence to show it is never appropriate. I've not done any moves since the ban, so everything rests on the moves before the ban. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

For appeal - this is the danger of an inappropriate editing restriction

I believe i've asked you before not to move my drafts into mainspace or tag for AFC submission. I'm more than capable of moving it myself and simply being in the Draft category doesn't mean it needs to go through AFC. Please stop submitting for other people. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

AFC review is an entirely optional process and no editor is obligated to use it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 I'm aware and I wasn't going to submit it to AFC anyway. I've asked before as well and the better thing to do here is look at the age of the account and whether they're active too. Not everything needs to be g13'd or submitted to AfC. It wasn't stale because I had no intention of continuing to work on it, it was because I wanted to take photos and get the non-online sources from the library to improve it before main space. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment was in agreement with you, Chrissymad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol, sorry! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any request from you Chrissymad, but even if you asked it does not seem to be reasonable to give special consideration or remember the preferences of various editors that created the thousands of drafts I look at. Remember the edit to submit the draft to AfC (which is what I do with all promising drafts I find up for G13) buys the draft another 6 months at worst or immediate promotion at best. An edit every six months should avoid having your drafts processed off the G13 lists, where every draft will be touched by some editor within a few days of hitting 6 months without edits. Sorry for the inconvenience. Keep creating good topics. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't "special consideration". WP:STALEDRAFT only applies to userspace drafts of long-inactive users. The above is a request for you to follow the relevant content guideline, which you have been ignoring. VQuakr (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't in AFC, so why were you even reviewing it? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Draft you are talking about, but it was likely on this list User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report as 6 months stale. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to note that this behaviour is a violation of your community imposed editing restriction. The logged restriction specifically states "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" so you should not be moving/submitting another user's content to the AFC process nor making comments regarding the AFC process as below. You should only be submitting content to AFC where you are the original author. I'm not going to take any action, the discussion was over 6 months ago, so this is simply a quick reminder that the editing restriction exists. I'll also note, in the interests of fairness, the decision could be appealed after 6 months, if you haven't done so already. I've no opinion on whether that would be prudent at this time. Nick (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The original intent of that sanction was to disallow Legacypac from creating/moving articles directly in mainspace. I say this as the original closing admin of that ANI. Moving drafts to AFC is a bit in the grey area. Perhaps I didn't word it clear enough at the close. [2] But the AFC portion was just about how he created material, keeping it out of the view of search engines. As to moving someone else's draft to AFC, I'm not completely sure how that fits into these restrictions and it wasn't something I contemplated when finalizing the sanction. AFC isn't mainspace. From my perspective, moving drafts to AFC isn't disallowed simply because it wasn't even considered at close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" would appear to be explicitly clear - unless Legacypac is the originator of the material submitted through AFC, he is not permitted to use AFC and shouldn't be submitting other user's material to that process. That's perhaps separate to the movement of pages. I'd agree there's nothing stopping him moving pages around - say from User space into Draft space, but he can't then submit anything moved into Draft space for review via AFC, nor can he move it further into Article space. Nick (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nick, as much as I hate to disagree with you, when the closing admin says that the intention was that pages created by Legacypac need to go via AFC, it doesn't mean that they're prohibited from doing anything other than editing their own pages (despite the somewhat-vague wording of the close). I will agree that moving pages to AFC/the draft space is a grey area, but I don't find anything wrong with working in the draft space to deal with G13/problematic material.

To address the original point, while it would be "ideal" if Legacypac checked a page's history before submitting to AFC, they're not necessarily obligated to do so, and while Chrissymad may get annoyed at having to undo an edit (and is of course welcome to leave notes here) she does not solely control the content of an article and (to quote someone dead) "shit happens". Primefac (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I concur. The idea of moving drafts to AFC never came up at the ANI and I don't feel right imposing it after the fact. Yes, ideally he would avoid it but I don't feel I could sanction him for it. Admittedly, the wording could have been better, but it is difficult to anticipate every possibility when closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording of the close and the intention of the close clearly don't match each other then. The close should have been something like "Legacypac must use AFC to submit their new content to the Article space" or words to that effect, that has a quite different meaning to "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" which makes it sound, to a previously un-involved administrator, that Legacypac should not be using AFC with work written by other users. You'll need to work on how to clarify that close, Dennis, since it's inadvertently misleading for those of us who are looking at the community editing restrictions. Nick (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

First User:Nick - I have not violated the community imposed editing restriction and you need to retract your allegation. Arthur Rubin lost his tools partly based on his unsubstantiated allegations and unjustified action against me during the same thread where this restriction was imposed based partly on your unsubstantiated allegations. Now you say you could have blocked me?

I have submitted hundreds of drafts to AfC over many months - in fact as I currently can't move other's Drafts directly into mainspace that is the only way I have to continue identifying potentially salvageable abandoned content. Further, as one of the originators of the restriction you made unsubstantiated allegations that lead to this stupid restriction and since you showed up at my talk page to accuse me again...How is your move/creation survival rate User:Nick? If you want to police me you should be able to show you are a lot better than me at writing and identifying notable content. Sorry if I sound annoyed, but your posts have rubbed salt on a very unfair wound. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. Chrissymad is not a long-gone editor that abandoned a bunch of drafts that you need to rescue through AfC. She's a writer and is taking her time to perfect these articles before moving them into mainspace. Wikipedia relies on editors like Chrissymad to write content. If you move these drafts into AfC when that wasn't Chrissymad's intent, aren't you subverting her incentive to contribute? Sure, you're having fun jacking other editors' content because you derive pleasure in going through draft entries but your supposed contributions are stepping on the toes of constructive editors who simply want to finish drafts before publication. We have gamification in play here and your strategy is harming the payoff other editors derive from their work. You were asked to stop, Legacypac, so why not stop? You think that's too much hassle? How about you stop moving userspace drafts that aren't your own unless the editor has been inactive for a year or so? You can peruse the forgotten drafts while allowing active editors to edit at their own pace. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman the premise of your point misses the facts. Evidently the unidentified page was in Draft space (she said so) and up for G13 deletion. It was not in her userspace. Your assperations about my motives are WAY off base. I could have just tagged for deletion but instead, as is my practice with promising pages, I evidently tagged it for AfC. The appropriate response was a quick undue-not hassle me. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about Draft:July 2017 flood in Maryland? My mistake. I thought it was moving userspace stuff like User:Acalycine/A.F.C. Bursledon. I struck my comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown here is the close [3] Here is what User:Nick proposed that lead to the close "I'd suggest 'topic banning' Legacypac from moving any type of draft content into the mainspace, instead allowing/requiring them to move potential new articles into the Draft namespace where they can be submitted/reviewed through the Articles for Creation review process. That way BLPs and other content with verification and referencing issues remains out of the way of search engines and the 'encyclopedia proper' until it's checked by a AfC reviewer. Nick (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)"

Nick's comments here [4] [5] and [6] and what he proposed are very different. I've done exactly what he wanted to force me to do and now he says it is a violation! What is the correct venue to deal with Nick? Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Best venue is here. Leave it a few days, then look again and have a thick about it. If anything needs saying, say it a week later. Don’t ping anyone. Anyone with anything of value to say will already be watching. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• The closure that is logged at the logged restrictions page states "Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles" which I interpreted to be a restriction which means you can only submit content you have created to AFC process. Dennis has clarified that is not what the closure means and I've asked that they clarify their closure to note you can submit content created by others to AFC. I'll note very clearly that since the closure has been clarified, I will not and cannot take any administrative action based on this badly written restriction (not that I would anyway, given I'm involved with the original restriction). I will also point out that I was trying to stop you from getting into further trouble by reminding you of the restriction, which is why I was clear I wasn't going to block you and why I noted the restriction can now be appealed against - I was trying to be fair. I didn't have a problem with you using AFC with others work at the original discussion and now that the restriction has been clarified, I still don't. I'm sorry if you think I was being unduly harsh here, that wasn't my intention, I just didn't want to see you get into trouble and that's all there is to it. Nick (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I took it as Nick politely trying to keep you away from sanctions as well. I've done similar with editors when I thought they were going against a topic ban but might not understand they were. I accept responsibility for my close being less than clear, and Nick has accepted my explanation, so there really isn't much more to do. There were some misunderstandings, things are clearer now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Promising draft"

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

No, I wanted to get a feel for what was tagged and how the MfD regulars felt about this situation. Rather not take the heat for ignoring the tags, until we get a bit more experience with them. A whole bunch of the ones tagged are sports stubs that were mass draftified. It looks like, including those, the tag has been used about 220 times. I did a search specifying Draft space for the first few words of the tag to ID them and threw up a selection of ones I did not feel should be postponed or sent to AfC or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we are in agreement here. I appreciate your taking the time to look at them; what I was hoping to avoid was having every single one routed through MfD - I think we could get consensus on them as a group either through a single MfD discussion, discussion at WT:MFD, or discussion at WT:CSD. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the one MfD. The tag originated with users opposed to G13 expanding. I did not fight the tag, but things turned out as I figured they would - it would be used a few times and forgotten until the 6 months rolled around. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Cause you keep on working even while blocked. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How did you find these?

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

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

Great work and thanks Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

<noinclude>

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

Opps did not know that. Obviously only the unnecessary subpage. I tag usersubpages all the time - I wonder why an MfD subpage requires an extra step? Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Maybe it transludes the tag to the mainpage along with the rest of the contents? Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the cause. Tagging already-transcluded AfDs for speedy causes the same problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So it kind of looks like MFD is uo for deletion, but as soon as the subpage is gone the CSD tag would disappear from MfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

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

A: I'm not removing the template because I'm not familiar with the correct way to record the result on the talk page. B: We do not post personal info like age (which allows calculation of birth year roughly) of low profile individuals, especially children. There is almost a case to REVDEL that data. Anyway - where did the age data come from? For all we know someone just make it up. C: The entire pageant is a sub-event of a preliminary round. Your refusal to accept Wikipedia policy is troubling. D: If you think coming to my taokpage to call me names is productive... you are sorely wrong. Now, I will keep removing unsourced fancruft on the other state pages and you go follow policy properly. Be thankful I did not remove the unsourced winner names and cities yet. You know we have WP:V. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

OMG? Seriously? Get over yourself, lol. Or better yet, be constructive and start referencing the articles yourself. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I'm a little concerned about your statement that the pageant is little watched anymore. I know nothing about beauty pageants, but Notability is not temporary. @PageantUpdater:, taunting is disruptive editing. Please desist immediately. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} You are correct 78.26 ^{great user name!}, but at the same time, WP:N is not a single event, either...and it doesn't matter if there are 50 articles in RS covering it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree on all points Atsme. I'm not making any claims pro or con about the notability of these articles. If the discussion were about the 2016 edition of the pageant, I wouldn't make a peep. For all I know, the 1892 version of this event is exceedingly notable, and the 2016 version isn't notable at all. My concern was that a statement concerning current decreasing attention doesn't negate a topic if it was notable in the past. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Who said vandalism? Look at Miss Wyoming Teen USA as an example. There are IPs changing data with no sources. There are 33 alleged winner names with city and age and sometimes notes with zero verification. Maybe somewhere there is a reliable source that lists all that data but I've found even the pageant businesses do not maintain tables of past winners like exist on Wikipedia. The lack of RS that cover these businesses is a big part of why they are not notable. The pageant pages are little watched and full of OR. Easy to insert unverified info. Those editors that try to insist on sources are accused of knowing nothing about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

NR-1 sinkhole

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

Good pages like this would be forgotten except for G13 expansion to cover all Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Very true. Thank you again for your dedication to finding the gold nuggets in all the mud. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, you may be blocked from editing. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Go away. You lack credability. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, fuck off. I'm done --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing to reinsert unverified info is not a good idea. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See. Now that's the way to respond to criticism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remember AGF

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

For someone who was just reminded not to insult other editors, you have no right. A completely unreferenced page in a topic area where various editors change data regularly without refs could indeed contain made up info. That's why we have WP:V. What's also interesting is you have banned me from your talkpage but have no problems posting on mine. Seems a little douche like to me. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to re-read that exchange. I was simply advised not to use harsh language to describe your terrible behavior; which isn't to say that I was wrong, but that my language was not so much politic. But, you know this already.

Did you already forget what you were instructed to do moving forward? I have told you before that every time you treat another editor badly, I would fall upon you from a great height. That promise remains in effect. So, when you act poorly, expect me to call you on it. Chances are, though, another editor is going to beat me to it.

Assuming that another editor is making information up is an - frankly- irresponsibly stupid and uncivil accusation. If you are unprepared to offer the Assumption of Good Faith, I am pretty certain that you are going to edit your way into a perma-block. Now, be nice, or begone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said any particular editor is making anything up, only that there is a lot of room for made up info on pages with no refs and where info is changed from one unverified "fact" to another unverified "fact". As for "begone" you forget this is MY talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, Legacypac. After someone added something, you removed it and added the edit summary that it could be made up. When you see unverified info on a page, you can remove it or tag it as needing a citation, but you must see how suggesting that the editor made it up is a personal attack. This is the point that everyone in your recently filed ANI complaint was trying to tell you; you need to learn how to think about your actions and edit summaries before adding them. If you cannot learn this, I imagine your time here in Wikipedia is going to be a never-ending series of tragic misunderstanding where you end up indef blocked. I have seen it happen to others, so please - learn. There is no shame in asking for a WP:MENTOR; you clearly need some guidance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Okay, clearly this is not going anywhere productive. Jack, you've made your point very thoroughly, so it's time to drop the stick. If you don't want Legacypac on your talk page, it seems only fair to leave his alone. You don't have to like him, but it's time to walk away. Legacypac, you're well within your rights to remove any further comments here, I don't think replying further has much point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

My talkpage is always open for people who wish to dig a big hole for themselves. Comments about my mental state and how long I will be on wiki are not helpful [7] and could be viewed as harassment. I'd suggest stopping making my editing your concern. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Kalae

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

Agreed. Redirect the sandbox. Hopefully someone will pick up the Draft. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. Maybe there should be a Guild of Draft-Incubators, but, until there is, it will probably stay there, and it will be up for G13 in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it myself. I'm no expert on these houses but at least I've sat on deck of a similar house in NE Thailand and I own something somewhat similar in Malaysia. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Speedy deletion declined: User:Loaner Spinner/sandbox/Martarrious "Loaner" King, Sr.

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Loaner Spinner/sandbox/Martarrious "Loaner" King, Sr., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 does not apply to the userspace. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Lukane123/sandbox/Luther Kane

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Lukane123/sandbox/Luther Kane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 does not apply to userspace. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:MagicalWriter/sandbox/Magical Writing

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:MagicalWriter/sandbox/Magical Writing, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 does not apply to userspace. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Monazami/sandbox/Monazami

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Monazami/sandbox/Monazami, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 does not apply to userspace. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Oelehnlehn Faithful/sandbox/Silverproof is a term for vampire vestures.

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Oelehnlehn Faithful/sandbox/Silverproof is a term for vampire vestures., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G2 does not apply to userspace. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad.."does not apply to pages in the user namespace, unless submitted to WP:AfC" (talk page watcher) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Amanda - each of your declines, like your recent block of me, is wrong. Even Admins make mistakes. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey, didn't notice these were your speedys. Anyway, I had wondered why {{db-g2}} said specifically This criterion applies neither to sandboxes nor to pages in the user namespace. without any reference to AFC. Specifically I never had remembered any exception to this rule. When I looked back to see when it had come into effect, I found that you specifically made the change in policy. We'll see you at WT:CSD. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I did and no one objected even though CSD is a very heavily watched page. That is how policy gets made and many many admins have accepted deletes under G2. Thanks for getting up to speed. Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

09:12:07, 22 February 2018 review of submission by Sahar410

• Sahar410 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kaveh Afagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sahar410 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia  : Notability (music) , based on the following paragraphs, the notability is valid :

-Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

-Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

-Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

-Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. -Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Also based on Wikipedia: Proof, Wikipedia: Referrals and Wikipedia: Neutral Perspectives, this article introduces an artist who has just introduced him & is Impartial and all the statements are referenced to reliable sources (valid news agencies) and can be verified, & also articles of Iranian artists similar him are all confirmed and featured on Wikipedia. & also based on Wikipedia: the removal policy, this article is not eligible for removal. ( If order and need, I will translate all Persian news in English too ) ( I improving article & references, whatvis yoyr opinion now?) special thanksSahar410 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

special thanks & much apperciate to your attention dear LegacypacSahar410 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:DirtyTooth hack article

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

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

#NotMyQueen

Love your comment. I am also not a fan of Camilla Parker Bowles and wish to not see her be queen. I thought she was going to be styled as princess consort (HRH The Princess Consort)? It would be a disaster to see her as HRH The Queen Consort or Queen Camilla. She doesn't even use the title Princess of Wales because of her unpopularity due to her unsettling affairs with HRH The Prince of Wales, which restyled HRH The Princess of Wales as Diana, Princess of Wales. Thanks! CookieMonster755✉ 22:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Got to add a little levity some days :) Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. In the Yevgeny Prigozhin article, could you kindly add Edit summaries to your changes? Thanks so much. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A coordinated effort

Legacypac, you wrote: "It's all a coordinated effort." Yes, and more than we realize. It goes way back, with witting and unwitting players working together.

The Trump–Russia dossier ties this continuing and co-ordinated effort back to co-operation established at least eight years before Trump's election, and then alleges the current existence of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin." The election is the fruition of their efforts, but they got busted.

Paul Wood, a subject expert, has plainly described this co-ordinated effort:

"This is a three-headed operation,” said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: First, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated “bots”, then on Russia’s English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US “news” sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of “microtargeting”. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

“You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic,” said the former official, “you know where to target that stuff when you’re pushing it back.”

This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.[8]

The Putin/Trump/GOP/FoxNews/Breitbart/InfoWars/RT/Sputnik (note how the ends meet, and how the fake news was directed at InfoWars and Breitbart, and then trickled up) co-ordination is very active. The top GOP leadership are all corrupted and compromised, because they KNEW (especially the Gang of Eight members) that Russia was interfering in the election and helping the Trump team, but McConnell and Ryan ordered them all to stay quiet, in spite of the active threat. They also accepted illegal Russian money for their campaigns, so they are compromised in that way too.

Note that some players may be somewhat unwitting, in that they think they are patriots "fighting the good fight" to protect America from an evil (non-existent) "deep state", not realizing they are parroting Putin and serving nefarious Russian interests.

This latest phase started with the successful attempt, using Russian help, to get Trump elected. According to what Russians have publicly stated, he started to secretly plan the election with Russians back in 2013. In that process a lot MORE kompromat was created, because collusion/conspiracy/secrecy always creates kompromat. It's being used to pressure Trump, IOW a successfully activated blackmail threat, but he willingly plays along because he has no loyalties but to himself. He wanted to win, and wanted this help. With or without kompromat he would have done it.

Now that the plot is being uncovered and investigated, the operation has shifted into an obstruction and cover-up effort. They are now fighting for survival and to stay out of jail, and some are already confessing and cutting plea deals. Exciting times!

So is the new heading ("Attempts to discredit or halt the investigation") accurate? It's accurate, but pretty mild. With time we will be able to write "Attempts to obstruct justice" and an article entitled "Trump-Russia cover-up operation". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Drafts v Sandboxes

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Branch Davidians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davidian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Gentlemen's Agreement

Hi,

It just occurred to me maybe we can save everyone’s time by having some agreement between us.

First of all, I (now) understand MfDs occur in the course of your work. That’s fine: but it does appear provocative even if the provocation is not intended. (You can still hurt a person even if there is no intention.)

So, here is a simple proposal: can you send a list of 6 or 5-month-old math drafts to the WikiProject Math periodically from now on, instead of starting MfD entities for each of them? This seems to give everyone what they wants. From our recent experiences, once stale drafts are identified (note we math editors don’t keep track of oldness of drafts), many of them can then be merged or moved to the mainspace. On my part, I promise to deal with the drafts in those lists (the easiest case would be when a draft is no longer needed.) If you’re unhappy with the progress, you can proceed to use MfD as currently done.

I repeat: it is not your contribution which people have a problem with, which is top-notch from what I hear. It is an approach you’re using that keeps causing (avoidable?) dramas. —- Taku (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any good way of knowing what is coming up and I don't seek out math drafts. I just handle them as I find them. Take a look at this search from the user controbution search off your the left side of your user page. [9] Maybe you should create a "List of drafts I working on" somewhere easy to find, with links and the calculated date or just month it becomes G13 eligible. As you edit them, move the G13 date forward and update the list as you create new pages and finish older ones. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. But when you nominate a math draft you seem to know the creator is typically me and the draft is about math. So when you come across a reasonable math draft, can you send it to WikiProject math, instead of nominating it at MfD? If you're not seeking the deletion, this will result in less dramas. -- Taku (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the process is pages come up on User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report and I'm one of many editors that works to clear the report to zero each day. I can't guarantee I'll even see your Drafts, but recently several batches came up together on days I happened to be clearing the report. Most pages get G13'd but I've learned that will cause drama so I've been sending to MfD where a fair discussion can occur over the course of a week (ie it's NOT a speedy delete it's a maybe delete slowly). Even if I notified you or the Wikiproject the next editor along could G13 it immediately. After you edit warred over my effort to postpone G13 deletion - and I got an unjust block as a direct result of your ignorant actions - hopefully you'll understand I'll not be postponing deletion on any math drafts without an MdD discussion to deturmine if it is useful or junk.

I've made a really good suggestion that puts you 100% in the drivers seat. Make a list of drafts and dates. Make an edit every 5 months. Other editors have made other suggestions to group the stubs on a single page, put them in your userspace, store them on your harddrive, finish them etc. Why do you refuse every suggested solution? Why are you trying to push the task of babysitting these pages on to me? In the time you've spent trying to convince me to give special handling to these pages or trying to get sanctions imposed on me you could have made your list and a few dummy edits to ensure no one worries about the Drafts for 6 more months. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we're reaching any agreement. "babysitting to you" because I don't share the same concern. If you see an issue (staleness) that I don't, it is you who needs to address it in a non-confronting manner. For the record, I'm still willing to help address the issue that you see and I don't (because I'm an adult and nice!) At least I tried an overtune. A point for me and 0 for you. Bye. -- Taku (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you for creating the excellent page Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages That should help ensure some good pages make it to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lift your TBAN

FYI that I've proposed to lift your draft move TBAN at this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. Being banned from doing something any autoconfirmed editor can do is one iof the biggest insults on wikipedia. It was not earned but done not only with no evidence presented to justify it, but against all evidence I provided to show my creation/promotion rates are well above the 80% survival averages shown for autoconfirmed users in the WP:ACTRIAL lead up. Since I've not moved or created one page into mainspace since it's impossible for me to prove "improvement" hence I don't feel I can appeal on a positive note, and could only base an appeal on the errors of my accusers. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion question

Hi Legacypac, You recently nominated a draft for deletion. I left a reply on the relevant page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:BiondVax and am writing you here just to make sure you see it, before a decision is made. I'm rather unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture, so I'm sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, and don't mean to harass! Best regards, --WanderingJosh (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)