User talk:Legacypac

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Merry Christmas! -Fwth

File:Restaurant Bob l'éponge (1).jpg

Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, Legacypac!

Hey Legacypac, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇
Flooded with them hundreds 09:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:13:51, 25 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by CAMiller62

CAMiller62 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Advancial Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howdy from Texas. Just wanted to acknowledge Legacypac review of my draft article, and note I will work on revisions and resubmit. Thank you Casey Miller, Dallas, TX

Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 16:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Take my advice...

...and when some IP or sockpuppet leaves a provocative comment, just let it be, or possibly add a post of your own if need be to prevent others reading the thread from being misled in some way. It's very rare, in my opinion, that its helpful or necessary to remove such posts; they speak for themselves. And by removing them you show it bothers you. E Eng 05:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

does not bother me at all. I just clean up :) Merry Christmas. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of England? Elizabeth II?

Howdy. FWIW, Elizabeth II is not the Queen of England. She's in fact, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and

the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and St. Kitts and Nevis too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was just concentrating on the British office :) GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is really the Queen of Canada but we share her. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't call her Queen of Manitoba, which is the equivalent to Queen of England :) GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The monarchy is an "office"? Where is her "office" located?

We had the Queen of Vancouver and the like for many years. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Help

Legacy, thanks for reviewing the draft Cláudia Rodrigues Ferreira de Carvalho. I would like to ask you to please be so kind as talk to the editors, in the Project Women in Red, to read the guidelines on the notability of people, before inserting a girl's name in the project. I don't want waste my time creating a stub to find out later that the archaeologist, director of Brazil's oldest scientific institution, has no independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Thanks for your help! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 23:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Klein

Legacypac:

Thanks for reviewing my article on Cornelis Klein, but I do not understand what you mean by "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

The references I added are all reliable and authoritative. Are you suggesting that I need to add links to the journals? That will show that the articles exist, but only users with access (members, subscribers) will be able to download them.

I could add the numbers of citations for the articles, which is the best measure of quality, but they are not published anywhere, they must be calculated in real time using Google Scholar or Scopus or GeoRef and change (increase) with time, so are difficult to maintain accurately.

It is difficult to find links to sources for every society position he has held, as but is it not clear from the pattern of his career that he was one of the most prominent mineralogists in the US if not the world?

Thanks!

Crocidolite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocidolite (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosovo-note

Hello there, I saw that you have undone my edit. The stated number on the template is incorrect and taking in hand that 113 countries have recognized Kosovo at some moment, but some ~10 countries have revoked their decision, the formulation (maybe confusing) was neutral and factualy correct. I suggest that we edit the current number, as seen on International recognition of Kosovo, or put it back to my version from two weeks ago.

Thank you, Mm.srb (talk)

The text was poorly written. Go fix the supplied number rather than write confusing text. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A consultation with you as a senior editor - should I remove or edit 114 in the template or just write down the current number? I want to do it properly. ty Mm.srb (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence statement removed

One of your statements at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence was removed as it was not placed in the correct section. Please note that threaded discussion is not permitted on the evidence page. Thank you. Brad v🍁 23:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is because I'm not an Admin User:Bradv. Double standard at play. I just followed what GiantSnowman did in response to one of the users presenting evidence against him. If I reversed all a fraction of the valid edits he has I'd be blocked. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong, Lpac. Arbitration pages use a strange system where everyone's comments stay in their own section. Look in others' sections to see how it's done, and simply put your comment there, making sure it has enough context for readers to understand what exactly you're responding to. E Eng 02:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ya those rules only apply to non-Admins or evidence they don't like. GiantSnowman responded in another user section in the middle of their evidence and no one removed that. I just followed what was allowed there.

If I was not afraid to lose my account for being pointy I'd roll back 20 good edits for no reason just to see how fast I was blocked. A normal user would never be granted weeks of ArbComm and multiple chances. Heck I can't even get accepted for page mover right because I "don't need it" or someone does not like some of my page moves without needing to show what errors I made. The double standard is glaring. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you're referring to is a quotation, and was added by Cipow here. Brad v🍁 03:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really because it looks like an inline reply. Anyway a non-Admin would be blocked by now. Waste of my time because Admins protect their own. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman Arbcom Case

Hi Legacypac. Thank you for removing this comment; however, the edit summary was unhelpful in resolving the current dispute. The clerks have refactored your posts on the case and have talked to you about your comments in the past. Because of this, if you would like to post anything to the case, you will only be permitted to submit your posts to either the clerks at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org, who will post to the case on your behalf, or directly to the committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. If you would like to appeal this restriction, you can email the committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. For the clerks, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute other than a gross behavior problem compounded by a failure of the Admins to deal with behavior of one of their own in a manner that they would treat a non-Admin. So now I'm the only editor restricted as a result of this case. That is richly stupid. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did not comply with this restriction. For the sake of clarity, you may not edit any GiantSnowman case page. Further edits will result in action to enforce this restriction. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post to the case page and did not violate any restriction. An Admin posted an opinion unsupported by diffs and that does not seem to be an issue. You are very very unfair, have threatened me with a block and the system is rigged against non-Admins. I've now been excluded from the entire case and I filed it. Unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor did not include enough diffs, but may still submit evidence via email.

I get that you may not have known that the restriction above, as imposed by the arbitration clerks, applied to all edits to all GiantSnowman case pages. That's why I'm clarifying for you that it does indeed apply to all of them – namely, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman and Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. You can make submissions to those pages by emailing clerks-l

lists.wikimedia.org and appeal to arbcom-en

wikimedia.org. If you have questions about the extent or scope of this restriction, you can contact us at those same addresses. Your status as an admin or non-admin doesn't remotely factor into the actions taken by this committee. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I don't know at all that is what this meant. Is this a commitee action or a clerk action? Why can an Admin post a diffless submission full of opinion but my submission was removed and used to restrict me? Rather than answer my question, you just removed my post. That appears to be a distinction between an Admin and a non-Admin - which is why I filed the case in the first place - an Admin is given huge leway not afforded to a non-Admin. This restriction just proves the point. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) I'm sure LP appreciates no end being told that there's no difference to an arbitraion committee whether one is an admin or an editor...by a editor who is both a clerk and an admin. Hey, LP, if you aint read The Trial yet, get with it, you'll totally get Joseph K. ——SerialNumber54129 21:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would request my GiantSnowman evidence page posts be restored under a heading "Observation presented by Legacypac". This appears to be an acceptable way to participate. Discussion of Football is just as valid as discussion of Admin conduct. I am requesting this publicly because I want any refusal to be public just like the restriction imposed on me was done publicly, not buried in some email account where it is hard to discuss. Ping User:Bradv and User:L235.

Also since my perceived infraction was very minor and based on a misunderstanding I request the restriction against me participating in the case be removed by the clerks as I intend to participate in the workshop phase. If not lifted I will seek redress from ArbComm - I don't take kindly to being threatened with a block for participating in a case I filed against an Admin who abused his tools. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit your request by email per the above instructions. Brad v🍁 15:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a refusal? Because as I said - you posted the restriction on my highly watched userpage so this seems like a great place to discuss. Further I would prefer not to dosclose my email and real name unnecessarily. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you may not want to disclose your identity or regular email address. Many editors create separate email addresses specifically for use on Wikipedia, which you are welcome to do as well.

And yes, this is a refusal to hear your request for appeal here. Any further participation in the case by you, including an appeal of this restriction, must happen by email per the instructions above. Brad v🍁 16:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged that three Admins have been able to add diffless evidence/commentary but I have been restricted for attempting to do the same. Nice clerking. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is both misleading and lacks diffs. Football is no different than Hollywood celebrities or town pages or countless other topic areas that attract unsourced edits. Should we suspend AGF and other editing standards on a topic by topic basis? Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, L235, Bradv: I am bound to say that your tone here comes across as needlessly high-handed. EEng 19:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We're sorry about being high-handed, and we appreciate the feedback.
- Legacypac, one reason we would like you to appeal by email is that none of us, individually, can reverse this decision. The decision to restrict was made by consensus, supported by four clerks and two arbs with no dissenting opinions (one recusal). It will take a consensus, or an ArbCom decision, to reverse it. We are willing to consider changes to the restriction, but you'll need to send an email.
- Ultimately, the purpose of arbitration cases – this one, which is quite narrowly about a single editor, in particular – is not to complain about the process or seek broader changes to Wikipedia policy or practice; it's not to air grievances against tangentially-related perceived corrupt systems or Wikipedia-wide injustices. It's to resolve the dispute brought before the Committee.
- And again, if you want to participate, you are absolutely welcome to do so by email; the clerks will post your submissions on your behalf if appropriate. Thanks for your understanding; please reach out if any of this is unclear. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ivan Watson

I am unable to submit this for review. Is there a way to submit it to an AfD or some other approach I can use to solicit a consensus? A senior international correspondent of CNN who has has also worked for NPR and been involved in covering many major stories and received some coverage and recognition seems notable to me. Thanks for your consideration amd any suggestions. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a problem because WP:NJOURNALIST is interpreted by many to set a higher standard of notability than say WP:ENT. Maybe User:DGG has some insight. I feel a well known news reporter like Watson is more notable than many actors with an article (2 major roles is enough for them). Also more notable than many football players that only need to play a single game for the right team. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or any professional footballer who suits uo.. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]