User talk:Legacypac

Draft submission help

Hello! I'm writing to you because you recently helped me improve the article about Molecular Layer Deposition for submission. I have already made the changes you suggested, but now I see that the box with the button to submit the draft is gone. What should I do now? Is it alreaddy submitted?

References

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)

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, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• User:DannyS712/communicator
• User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
• User:DannyS712/Undo
• User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
• User:DannyS712/Readonly
• User:DannyS712/Redirectify
• User:DannyS712/Section-strike

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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

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.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language was closed as no consensus, but you then redirected the portal against this consensus. Please respect the consensus that occurs in discussions on Wikipedia, rather than acting unilaterally against such consensuses; it is disruptive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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_creep^Talk 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_creep^Talk 11:19, 31 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)

New Portal Creators

A portal-potty might be useful in this situation.

EEng

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please stop adding portal pages to MfD nominations opened by others

Hi Legacypac

Please stop adding pages onto existing MFD nominations. There are some limited situations where it may be appropriate, but you have been adding far too many.

The worst I have seen was a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, where I nominated one portal. You added 52 extra portals, which made an utter nonsense of my nomination rationale, and has led to a sprawling debate which has unsurprisingly not been closed after 25 days. That is monumental waste of editors' time; in its own way, it just as disruptive as the spam creation of portals.

The most recent that I am aware of is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Los Angeles glorified navbox microportals, where you added[1] 6 extra pages.

Two of those are already under discussion at another MFD:

• Portal:Century City, Los Angeles at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small towns in California Portals
• Portal:Granada Hills, Los Angeles also at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small towns in California Portals

Having the same pages discussed simultaneously at two XfDs is blatant forum-shopping. It is made even worse by fact that you didn't even tag them for the second discussion, so anyone looking at those portal pages would be unaware that they were being discussed elsewhere.

You also added 4 other pages:

• Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles
• Portal:Downtown Los Angeles
• Portal:South Los Angeles
• Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

The last of those, Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles had multiple manuals edits and so did not meet the criteria which the nomination described as being shared by all the pages nominated.

The nomination is for portals with a scope of less than 16 pages, but the other 3 pages which you added exceed that scope:

• Portal:South Los Angeles has 50–100 pages within its scope
• Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles has 26–30 pages within its scope
• Portal:Downtown Los Angeles has 41–40 pages within its scope

All of those facts were available to you when you added to them to the nomination, including the scope figures, because I have created tracking categories for scope: see Category:Automated portals with 31–40 articles in article list and 13 other cross-liked tracking categories.

This is highly disruptive conduct, because apart from the forum-shopping, you turned a carefully-checked and described nomination into a festival of falsehoods. That led to my signature appearing below a bunch of untruths, which tarnishes my good name. I have participated in thousands of XFDs over 13 years, taking great care to be precise and accurate, and to promptly and explicitly acknowledge and correct any errors. I am appalled that you have associated my name with untruths.

This has to stop now. You have already been the subject of multiple threads at ANI, where I have not supported sanctions against you ... but this after latest episode, I would strongly support sanctions for any repetition. In the meantime, I am pinging @Thryduulf, who has been a major critic, because while I disagree with most of Thryduulf's approach, they have a right to know about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at any of BHG's links (I don't have time right now), but if what they say is correct (and her general opinion on portal-related matters it seems very unlikely not to be) then I fully endorse her description of this as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thryduulf. I spent about an hour making that nomination, which is way more time than the portalspammer (@The Transhumanist) spent creating those microportals, because I always take a lot of care to do due diligence and ensure that my XFD nominations are accurate. That is why I have objected so strongly to your unevidenced allegations against me.

I have just spent another hour checking Legacypac's misplaced additions, and documenting the problems. The cleanup of the portalspam is far too much work already, without having time wasted by this sort of cavalier disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I will nominate them separately then. I was very very clear that I made the additions and set them off as seperate from the original nom so there would be no confusion. The obvious commonalities are the scope. BHG has also been dragged to ANi over portals and as for Thruduulf you are in a class of your own for obstructiin and false accusations around Portals. Drag me to ANi, fail to get trackion but uninvolved editors give you grief, and keep ≥citing the origional thread as some proof there are vague problems with me. You are a major reason we cN't sppedy delete all this junk in one go. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, you say The obvious commonalities are the scope. But Portal:South Los Angeles has 64 articles in its scope, whereas the nomination was explicitly for portals with less than 16 articles in scope.

And there's just no excuse for the forum-shopping --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

MFD for Portal:Palace of Versailles

Hi Legacypac

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palace of Versailles, a nomination which you created earlier today, using WP:TWINKLE.

That portal is built on a navbox which isn't about the Palace of Versailles at all. It's a about a Japanese band.

This is visible on the face of the portal, both in the selected article list and in the display of the template at the bottom. I spotted it in seconds after opening the portal, and I don't know how anyone else could have missed it.

That obviously reinforces my assessment of @The Transhumanist's portal creations as reckless spam, especially since TTH created the redirect from Template:Palace of Versailles to Template:Versailles which made this possible.

But it also clearly indicates that your MFD nomination was made without even minimal scrutiny of the portal page. As you know, I agree that nearly all these automated portals are at best useless, and at worst a disruptive waste of readers' time, and I support deletion. In this case, the portal is even worse that you thought. But the community relies on deletion nominations being made with some sort of diligence, at least a few basic checks ... and the fact that you opened the portal page to use Twinkle but didn't even notice the flaw is clear evidence that you didn't even skim-read the page before nominating it.

This comes after my message to you yesterday about your disruption of an existing nimination, which I am sad to see that you deleted[2] from this page without archiving.

So I'm sorry, but I have lost confidence the integrity of your MFD nominations of portals. So I want to ask you to stop making them: i.e. you make no more deletions nominations for portals.

I think that voluntary restraint will be better for you and everyone else than a formal topic ban discussion at WP:ANI, so I hope you will consider this carefully. However, if you delete this message or or prematurely archive it, then I will take this matter to ANI.

Pinging Thryduulf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I note that the warning which you deleted yesterday was restored[3] by @Robert McClenon. I'm not sure about the advisability of Robert doing that to another editor's talk page, but I hope that Legacypac will view it as a helpful act by a friend. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination based only on similarity to Winter Palace. There was no need to articulate everything wrong with the portal or research it in depth because it is a single building or complex of buildings. A million other fixable errors in the construction of the portal do not matter when the unfixable scope is the core issue. Many many nominations happen and others discover or note additional problems. For example you removed 30 odd portals from one of your noms over a supposed mistake that turned out not to be a mistake, then added and removed 1300 more. I'm still trying to figure out why you did a test covering half of the batch instead of all of them. I already know you despise me so please stop throwing your admin weight around on my talkpage and stop trying to derail my nominations like you did by posting inaccurate info at my small LA neighborhood bundle. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, @Legacypac, I do not despise you. On the contrary, here is lots I like about you. And I am raising these issues here as a less escalating alternative to raising them at ANI. If you would prefer me to take them there, then I will do; but otherwise I will notify you here.

But I am increasingly concerned that your excessive haste in throwing pages onto MFD without properly checking the facts is creating too much drama and thereby discrediting the whole process of cleanup.

I have seen you do much the same thing in two other types of XFD, and it is deeply counterproductive. It creates drama which distracts everyone from the substantive issues, and gives ammunition to those who want to stop the whole cleanup.

So please, less haste and more care is the way for you to stop undermining your own efforts.

I'm sorry to see that you responded by misrepresenting what happened at the mass MFD. Another editor raised a concern, so I promptly did a re-check and here were 36 pages which had been mistakenly included. I promptly removed them and apologised; and instead of complaining that my error had been detected, I thanked NA1K for raising the problem -- because we are engaged in a collaborative effort to get it right, not in a battle.

And it's also untrue to say that the batch of any 36 which I removed turned out not to be a mistake. None of them met the criteria set for the nomination. It later turned out that 30 of the 36 do meet a similar criterion, and will be included in a later batch, but they should not have been included in this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi Legacypac, Your nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Decompression (diving) was based on a false premise. There are not 16 articles in Category:Diving decompression, there are 18 excluding the additional 6 in the subcategory Category:Decompression algorithms. The total in the category Diving decompression is 24. This exceeds the current requirement even if they were the only articles used in the portal. As it happens there are over 40 articles used in the portal, but that is not obvious at a cursory glance. Unfortunately I did not notice the MfD and no-one bothered to notify me, so I was not able to point these details out at the MfD. You have more experience with deletions than most so I assume you will know what to do about this.

The portal was indeed created by The Transhumanist, but on request as a demonstration of how to use the templates. It was not part of any mass creation and is an integral and important part of the underwater diving portal system.

The earlier one-piece underwater diving portal was split because it was too big to render as a single portal. I am open to suggestions on how to condense the sub-portals to a smaller number providing that the subdivision is logical, useful to the reader, and complies with categorisation appropriate to the topic. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, I just checked the code of the deleted portal. It was a navbox-based portal, using Template:Decompression (diving). The overwehlming consensus at MFD is that such portals are useless ... so there is near-zero chance that the portal would have survived MFD.

If you want, you can open a DRV, and maybe will have a fresh MfD. Then I or someone else can point out that Template:Decompression (diving) contains only 50 pages, 6 of which are stubs or duplicates and one of which is the head article. So that 43 pages for the selected articles list. If you seriously want to claim that this is an example "a broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", per WP:POG, then prepare for a debate. Than minimum of 20 is minimum, not a mandate,

I really think it is long past time that you and the other portal fans accepted where consensus lies, and stopped trying to defend every single microportal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, If you look closely, you might notice that I am not, as you put it, trying to defend every single microportal. I would like to inspect the consensus you refer to regarding navbox-based portals, if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it is expressed, as there is nothing on the portals guidelines that indicates that there is a consensus on that point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, also look at the overwhelming support for a mass cull at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.

Note that I did not accuse you personally of "trying to defend every single microportal". I was pointing to the collective failure of you and the other portal fans; there's nearly always at least one of you pitching up at MFD to defend any old piece of driveby portsalspam.

And look at WT:WPPORT: there is absolutely nothing there from project members such as yourself which tries to grade, classify or triage portals. The only such discussion there is one begun today by me ... but collectively, you and the other portal fans have done almost nothing to assist the cleanup of the wave of spam which TTH unleashed with the full knowledge, support and encouragement of you personally and many other editors.

You and the rest of the team defended TTH against complaints about the volume of junk, you were aware of his "newsletters" which boasted endlessly of quantity and you did noting to assess quality ... and yet even after hundreds and hundreds of portals have been deleted and while ~1900 are currently at MFD, even now all you do is try to wikilawyer about the deletion of one narrow topic. Wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion

of that DYK was hilarious :-) And, guessing leather is just impossible! ∯WBG^converse 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Stars, Portal:Fish, maybe Portal:World ocean ... nope. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What portal contains DYK...... that the Custer Wolf, a North American gray wolf referred to as the "master criminal of the animal world", killed livestock worth almost $300,000 in today's money?

What portals contain DYK...that Alvin Adams founded Adams and Company, forerunner to Adams Express Company, to haul express freight shipments by rail in 1840?

DYK... that professional baseball player Terry Doyle works as a substitute teacher during the offseason?

DYK... that Uncle Tom once led a professional baseball league in stolen bases?

DYK... that no commercial boat has beaten the steamboat Robert E. Lee's (pictured) 1870 speed record between New Orleans and St. Louis of 90 hours and 14 minutes to this day?

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

Your work and contributions at the AfC Wikiproject are exemplary. I've messed up my assessment of you earlier, and I'm grateful that you've forgiven me for that. But truly, it's a wonder why it's taken me this much time to hand over this barnstar to you. You're probably amongst the most dedicated contributors at this Wikiproject and I'm thankful to have you as a valued colleague. With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor. Keep up the great work! :) Lourdes