User talk:Legacypac

Your username

I'm kind of surprised nobody else has brought this up with you yet. Your name appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME, as it would appear to represent this organization. The policy prohibits names that give the impression that you might represent a group or organziation, even if you do not actually represent them. You can easily address this issue by filing a request at WP:CHUS. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Response: I'm from Canada and never heard of American Legacy Political Action Committee before today. I've used legacypac as an online identity since 1996. I doubt anyone will confuse "American Legacy PAC" with "legacypac" as the American is the distinctive element. I actually tried unsuccessfully to combine accounts across various wiki sites into another username a while back. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess if I am the only one who has even noticed in all this time it probably is not an issue, they don't seem to have anything to do with your areas of interest here so the chance of being actually mistaken as representing them is minimal. PACs play an increasingly large role in american politics, so we try to stay vigilant when ot comes to them trying to spam here, but that is clearly not what you are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of PACs generally, and love Colbert's PAC :) I doubt anyone will confuse me for them and if they do, they can change their name since I came first :) Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to readers: several users have made reference to some alleged connection between my username and American Legacy PAC. Since there are more than 4,000 active federal PACs in the United States, forgive me for not being up on all of them. I started editing here in 2007 but American Legacy PAC only started in the 2012 election cycle and my choice of username is not some conspiracy planned years in advance. If you bring up this as an attack point expect strong resistance as there is no connection. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work on the Boston Marathon bombings was outstanding and greatly appreciated. Nice work on the MIT Police article too! Hot Stop (Talk) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for standing up to the idiots here

❁ ← I don't know how to make barnstar pix, but pretend this is one anyway.

I see you have the same problem as me, being suppressed and shouted down by wiki-retards. My guess is that they do it to sublimate their anger at being such wretched geeks that they're laughed at by everyone in general and girls in particular.

...Oh, and an extra barnstar: ❂ for not being an American. If you think "my fellow Amurr-kins" are irrational, wrongheaded buffoons on Wikipedia, just try living here. You have NO idea how lucky you are to be in a civilized country. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not really about you, but it does involve this nasty user award you have here, so just letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I'm about to be banned from Wikipedia for calling Americans "irrational, wrongheaded buffoons." They're saying that the "no personal attacks" policy applies to the entire United States as a whole. That might sound like a joke, but they're serious. Are these people self-parody, or what?

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 unsolved 3x homicide =?=Tsarnaev bombers

Glad I saw your link to that 9/11/11 unsolved-triple-homicide before it got deleted; I did more research, went back to add facts & support, irritated yours deleted- should dispute if you have patience heh. Although a circumstantial association its compelling, fact based enough and can be further resourced.

All the junk they could have deleted like worthless page aboowwut canada's reaction (no relevance to anywhere or anyone).

Killing was on 9/11/11 (coincidentally to dzokrah's citizenship date), throats slashed, tamerlan seen referring to victim as best friend, fled to russia 6 months right after killing, weed spread on bodies (perhaps to look like drug relation...) dzhokar did smoke pot.

If i see you repost i'll log in and support it. can be a hassle with the power hungry tho.

-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.232.157 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the new section on the Bombings Talk page myself as I found an article about the 2011 kills started already. But thanks - The people who started the 2011 article did a great job building it very fast. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. -- TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been invited, so let's see your hard cold logic, with cites.Sigiheri (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Could you provide citations for the countries you have added to the infobox today, please? When composing the footnotes, please use the Wiki Edit cite template method, and do not leave just bare URLs, as these are susceptible to link rot. When that happens the link will be broken and the citation will be unreadable. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The article itself has good cites for the countries added. Just turn on any TV or check any paper to see that UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc are bombing ISIS. What I don't get is all the opponents listed that are not actively fighting. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All the other countries/groups have supporting citations in the infobox; this is a gap. The UAE isn't mentioned in the article yet. Someone may add "citation needed" tags and I was trying to pre-empt that. Just knowing the news isn't enough in WP. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who ads a cite needed instead of just adding a cite is wasting their time. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor concerned to provide citations and a tag is better than a straight revert. But that apart, thanks very much for rationalising the Lead infobox and getting some sense into it at last. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the symbols you use in the infobox, $, is misleading. It suggest financial support, not military operations - that was what I immediately thought. Perhaps "m" instead? -P123ct1 (talk)

Ya, that is a good point. I was looking for something that does not have a wikipedia function like * does. I trimmed out everyone that was just talk, so now we just have different levels of military intervention, either fighting, bombing or supplying arms. 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job done! Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Have just noticed that your edit re Abu Omar al-Shishani didn't register, and there are no reverts of it registered. Software not working? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you are interested

The first ref I can find to 'self-designated "Islamic State”' is at: http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/333-ankara-pursues-persian-partnership.html .

Its use at ISIL is a strong contribution. Was it your invention? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen various media use the phrase, but that is a good article. Often the media uses Islamic State in the headline for brevity but qualifies it was "so called Islamic State" in the body, and then uses ISIL or ISIS for the rest of the article. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Its the problem of brevity when editors opt for shorthand for an easy flowing text rather than a fuller story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ISIS edits

First, thanks for going into the United Nations designation so thoroughly; you are quite right that the RSN only scratched the surface. Tbh, the RSN was not much help with a similar query we recently put to them about Israel's designation. Secondly, I owe you some sort of apology and an explanation. Sooner or later there was going to have to be a section on criticism of the Islamic State - this has been alluded to in discussion on other aspects - and today an IP has raised the same subject. Your edits seemed a perfect opportunity to open a section on criticisms, so I have done that and put into it your edit about Tony Abbott and also your edit in the Lead I rather high-handedly reverted yesterday. I removed the Lead edit as it was specifically about the name and the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole. This new section seemed an ideal place to put it. I will put a note about the new section on the Talk page and of course anyone is free to question it or make adjustments. I am not particularly happy with the title I gave it, for instance, or its positioning rather late in the article, but at the moment I cannot think of the best place to put it, given the way the article flows. We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and I certainly have been this time. I hope there are no hard feelings. Obviously you are free to revert what I did (but please leave the new section!) and I won't consider it as edit-warring. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen these edits. I think that the name is one of the most critical issues being discussed that it belongs in the lead. CNN for example is sticking to ISIS while people are talking about action against ISIL. Thanks for being cooperative. It is all very strange. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said. The new section is called "Criticism of the Islamic State". The widespread criticism and dispute is really about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate, isn't it? The name "Islamic State" and whether that name should be used is part of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		A barnstar for your work in cleaning up and reorganizing the page 2014 military intervention against ISIL recently. Good job! SantiLak (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Lol, Chill out dude. Yes you were arguing for consistency. Note as well I was arguing for consistency. My first comment was to make clear that 3 names for the Islamic State were being used in various places throughout the article. That of course is not consistent. As I said for alot of people this may not be confusing now but this inconsistency in the article may become problematic and confusing down the line. Your mention of the general sanctions did not apply to that situation and they only stand to make this already heated situation more heated. Was it 2 or was it 3 separate ANI's opened in one day about something on that article or related articles? Don't you find that ridiculous? You have a link to the consensus that It should be called ISIL. You don't need explain the general sanctions when you have that. That gives us a reason to use ISIL. Then you have your consistency and that also fixes the inconsistencies in the article that I have pointed out. Win, win, and then we can move on to another issue in the article. Like for instance you have brought up an issue with the map. Someone has changed the map to one that only covers Iraq. Does this new map meet your concerns? We have nothing to fight here. I'm only here to try to improve the article. I think you are as well. No offense. Truce. Or what have you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as cross-I have no issues with you. Just feel under attack recently by someone else. Yes lets be consistent. I made some edits toward that goal. The Iraq map is much better than the red ISIL map. I also took out the casualties that should not be listed in this article. Improve together right. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the attacks and I completely understand. That's actually why I've reached out to you here. Someone sets up a Battleground and you get forced into a fort. You have nothing to apologize for there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Intervention

Hey Legacypac, I was wondering if you could help me out with there 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. A user tried to mess around with the infobox and lump together Iraq and Iraqi kurdistan into the same section as Iranian led partners when they have always been separated. I changed it and the Iraqi forces are separated again but I can't seem to get the line to separate the Iranian forces and the US-led forces. Since you have done a lot of work on the article and seem experienced at this kind of technical stuff that I sometimes don't always get, I was wondering if you could help. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at my request. Thanks! - SantiLak (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

EU/UN - ISIS

When you did all that valuable research into the UN's position on ISIL as a terrorist organization, did you find out when the EU adopted the UN's Sanctions List? I can't find a date for this anywhere on the internet, and I think we need to put that in (section 3). I added a "when?" tag to the EU, hoping someone would come along and fill it in, but never thought to ask you until now! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The original UN Security Council designation was against al Qaida and co in 1999 before 9/11 (2001). The EU has been tracking this list since Council Resolution 467/2001 of 6 March 2001. After what is now called ISIL joined al Qaida the UN on 18 October 2004 added them to the terrorist sanctions list. The EU has made over 130 updates (as I recall) to their list keeping up with updates to the UN list. I dont know if it took days or weeks to update the EU list to match the UN list but it hardly matters since they adopted the entire list back in 1999 and by policy mirror the UN list. See the chart here http://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/RLM_EU_Terrorist_Listing.pdf [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find in that document where it says the EU has been tracking the list since the Council Resolution of 6 March 2001. What page is it on? Where does it say the EU adopted the UN list in 1999? Where did you get those dates from? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found a date, thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Military of ISIL

@Legacypac: thanks for your edits on the above article. My thoughts relate to WP:BEGIN - "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." and that if ISIL have air capability then an overarching description of army is inappropriate. As a general comment I think that there can be disruptive edits by stealth and I'm not sure how much further this goes than the ones that I have recently highlighted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I meant proof that opposition resulted directly from the propaganda, a negative effect of the propaganda, not opposition in general. Hope this clears up the point. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to come up with sources saying the beheading, Jonah tomb, and mass execution videos have resulted in increased awareness and world public opposition, leading to various govts willingness to go to war. P123ct1. It is very clear to me ISIL Propoganda = increased support and opposition, both of which ISIL wants as they seek military confrontation. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

To say "No nation recognises..." is stating something that has not been proved yet. You say in your edit summary: "no need to request a cite here - tons of cites support the point in the next sentence." They don't support the statement that "No nation recognizes ..." at all. If you really cannot understand that or how the statement is misleading, I give up on working with editors to produce a truthful, balanced article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this so hard. Geo Politically "recognizes" is a specific diplomatic term and "recognition" is one of the tests of statehood. The statement is 100% fact until some country says "hey, Islamic State, you guys are the legitimate government of the territory you claim, welcome to the club of nations." The burden of proof must shift to the person adding a cite tag in proving that some nation recognizes them as a country. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If the burden of proof is on the person who adds a cite tag, there would never be any cite tags. You have switched from saying there is no need for a cite because there are tons of cites already there to support the point (edit summary) to saying there is no need for one because of the diplomatic recognition point. Which is it? This is an academic point for me as I don't much care what the wording is. I will leave it to other editors to go into this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my point has changed at all - but some clarification was achieved by wiki linking to diplomatic recognition. Suppose you declared your backyard to be the Islamic State. I write "No nation recognizes your backyard as the Islamic State." Now what RS can we find to justify the statement about your backyard or does your claim to sovereignty stand? Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your reasoning, but I retract my bad-tempered comments starting "If the burden of proof ...". :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Islamic State of Iraq

Forgive my instrusion into this discussion, but would you please stop deleting the info box on the Islamic State of Iraq. Your reasoning that they are not a state based upon the fact that they have never been recognized is just a good enough reason. If they haven't been recognized, then they are a unrecognized state. The infobox is there because from 2006 through 2008, the group now known as ISIL set up a self-declared Islamic State in Iraq. They controlled multiple Sunni communities until there downfall in 2008, when they were driven from their major strongholds and reduced to a low-level insurgency. They still claimed to be an Islamic State, but they no longer controlled any territory. Now, thanks to their successful 2014 offensives in Iraq and Syria, they once again control territory. They are a self-declared state, like Somaliland, which isn't recognized by any current governments. Recognition doesn't matter to them. They consider themselves a vstate, and they still maintain effective control of the areas which they gained. We cannot deny the fact that they are a state simply because they are not recognized. Wikipedia is not a website run by politicians, and it never will be. Yes from a political standpoint they need recognition, but I'm sure you know as well as I do that sometimes what is written on a political document doesn't always hold true in reality. They and the people who support them don't need recognition to run their own affairs. Recognition is only a requirement for statehood on paper. As much as we hate them for what they are doing, we cannot ignore the fact that they are running the government services and positions within the territory they control. This is a site about facts that isn't hindered by politics. We speak of things as they are, and as they are, they are a self-declared state that controls territory considered officially part of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. I emphasize the term Officially, as while the territory is still recognized as part of their respective countries, the governments of said countries have virtually no actual control over much of the area that ISIL has claimed as its own. The same could be said of the areas controlled by The Islamic State of Iraq from 2006 through 2008. We cannot just pretend that this isn't true simply because they have never been politically recognized. That is why they are considered an unrecognized state on the encyclopedia. Please do not delete the infobox again. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for your explanation. See discussion here and just above that discussion. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Notable ISIL members) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Notable ISIL members, Legacypac!

Wikipedia editor Dylanfromthenorth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Moving it to List of ISIL members, and it'll need references, but it 'could' be encyclopaedic :)

To reply, leave a comment on Dylanfromthenorth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, I'm thinking of putting in a RM request to either change Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members to Category:ISIL members or to change List of ISIL members to List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members. Any preference? Either way its turning into quite a death list. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya and the world (and even ISIL who craves martyrdom) wants the death list to grow. I created it with a title exactly matching the heading in the ISIL article from whence it came, but as you can see Dylanfromthenorth promptly renamed the article. I was not even thinking about the category. I don't mind the new name and frankly now that the list is out of the high traffic article it can be added to without people worrying about adding too many names. Anyone that is notable enough for their own WP article should be added. Let;s just move it to List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members and cite lining up with the related category, which should not be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks great. Also to let you know that I have created a link to from the category to its "main" article and have also created the sub-category, "Category:Members of groups allied with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I don't personally see clear evidence that groups in Libya, Sinai etc. are part of ISIL. A group can potentially declare being allied or loyal and benefit from the publicity attached, grow in size and continue to do what they like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was of that opinion to (and still am for Yemen, Algeria and KSA), but the sources on Libya [1][2][3] 300 returned ISIL fighters, a leader sent by Bagdadi from Syria etc al seems like an organized colinilization project. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll also leave you to decide whether or not to add {{Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant}} I think it might be useful lower down the page to explain non-"ISIL" citations as were mentioned on talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that template does or adds - you are a level headed editor, add it if you think it will help. We do have the problem of 50 names for the group that is not really explained in the article. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

List of ISIL members sourcing

Hi - I got stuck trying to source some of the entries in the List of ISIL members article; as I'm sure you appreciate this is the kind thing we could do with having references for. When I searched for some of them I got lots of hits confirming membership of Al-Qaeda but not ISIL, and it's not quite the same. I was wondering if you could help out? I left a note on the article talkpage about it too, and I have both there and here on my watchlist, so I don't mind where you reply :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but the entire article was a spinoff from the heavily edited ISIL article, just lifting out a section. Generally as the list as evolved all the names link to articles about the members. I'm not too concerned with sourcing the names on the page - but if you want to add sources I'd suggest looking at the underlying article. Some of these guys only got press when they died. Also remember that many were killed when what is now called ISIL was a unit of al-Qaeda so I'd expect refs to the parent org. But if they were in Iraq and connected to al-Qaeda before the break between the orgs they were AQI=ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okey dokey. So I've amended the article lede with "...and previous incarnations" and can cross-reference Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Names with my reference searches. All good. I'll hang on until after the page-move to the full ISIL name though anyway. :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent addition and I moved the page. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic criticism

Hi, One of the aspects of the lead that used to be very prominent related to Islamic criticism of the group and this is the aspect that pro ISIL editors seem most keen to remove from the article. It was most notibly witnessed during Fel123..s Unilateral removals of this type of criticism and the consensus discussion regarding the replacement of any content was largely conducted in a context in which the scale of this removal was not apparent and in which I was being libellously presented as the only editor that wanted criticism in the lead. The same people that advocate the use of the unqualified designation "Islamic State" are largely the same people that are opposed to a representation of Islamic criticism in the lead.

My conjecture is that the various editors have little problem with the idea of governmental criticism but desperately want to remove reference to Islamic criticism. I don't know if you have witnessed a similar pattern. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are on to something. pro-ISIL types don't mind western govts saying nasty stuff or dropping bombs, they WANT that fight. It justifies their existence as protectors of the faith. But listening to moderate islam is not cool. As I've gotten deeper into the reasons for ISIL actions it is clear they want to restore the faith to an early time before it was corrupted. (the muhammad seal on the flag, erasing borders, rejecting modern governments, worldwide caleph all drive at this goal). It leads to ISIL priorities: 1. destroy "bad" muslims to clean up the faith 2. attack "unbelievers" 3. attack Israel and the Western Crusaders. VS. al-Qaeda's which says 1. attack Israel and the Crusaders 2. correct local unbelievers 3. straighten out our confused brothers. VS. more "moderate" muslim militants that operate on "first comes Saturday, then comes Sunday" for people to kill but are happy to engage in Sunny-Shia bloodshed when it suits them. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

With what you say above I'm wondering if you still have the same view on ^[b]. My last comments on the "To b.." thread summarise the position. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, after 9/11, I remember there being a huge amount of criticism from Islamic communities against al-Qaeda, there is no related content in the al-Qaeda article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Signedzzz

Thanks for all your efforts in preventing this editor from editing against consensus. We may not always see eye to eye, but this is very much appreciated. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is in recognition of your many useful contributions over the months to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. Thank you. P123ct1 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS: 2.6 "Military and arms"

I am copy-editing and have two small questions on this part. Where is Saini? I couldn't find it in WP or Google. Are the "plus 800 operating in Libya" Libyans or Tunisians? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that and for asking. Should be Sinai_Peninsula in Egypt - that's a spelling error. There are reported to be 800 ISIL fighters located inside Libya now. I've not read anything about their nationality except that 300 came back to Libya. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I was so dim as not to have spotted that should be "Sinai"! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring of ISIS article

The main criticism I would have of that great restructuring of the article, which was very badly needed, is that the criticism comes before the rest, which I have explained on the Talk page, but I did let rip about some other things which were not to do with your restructuring! I hope you don't take any criticism personally, because it not meant to be; it is always the issue that is more important to me than individual editors, though it may not have looked like it the other day! I admit some of my remarks went a bit far then and apologise for it; I have redacted or struck out the worst ones. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the criticism before details about ISIL was a weakness that someone changed already. Let's work cooperatively ok :) Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Are you going to restate/state your case regarding the sequencing of article content? Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye I think I did state my support already but will check. I think I'll just resequence it tonight.

You see the two reverts issue?

And I solved our "Govt" issue, and a few more issues but it will freak some ppl out. It is hard to fit a non-country in a country box and a almost state in a war factions box but I Found a Geopolitical organization infobox that is way more flexible then either of our current boxes. I've managed to combine the two infoboxes into one better infobox.The only thing not replicated it the red control map - just will not take it - but maybe we don't care, or just stick it outside the box or in the beside the box. It is already in the article anyway. Can you take a first look at it see if I missed anything? Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why people see a connection between the detailed content on governance and the stand alone content of criticisms. I think people are looking too much at titles and ignoring actual content.

The infobox development looks positive. The country infobox was never relevant. You have added a new "Participant in the.." section which presents new content which may be more hatnote material but this is still valid. I removed the red splodge map and, if anything, it should go side by side with the war factions map but this still seems inappropriate to me. It looks good and, as far as I can remember, parallels use in other language versions on ISIL. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No the particent in section is right out of the War factions (2nd) box. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a section with "Participant in the Iraq War, the *Global War on Terrorism, the Iraqi insurgency, The Syrian Civil War, 2014 Libyan Civil War and Sinai insurgency" which is all good content but new. I have also been wondering about the use of "Wilayah" rather than "province". In most cases of the use of this word it gets translated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That section is from the top of the 2nd box verbatim. Province is good too. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting that section in small which fits with the war factions style. Perhaps I didn't recognise it because of the size difference. These links are more appropriate at the top of the page> Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I made a couple of changes that you can review and also wondered about putting in a Status line for "Rebel group..." do you know how to do this or should we ask. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What would you like it to say? - the new infobox says "Type Rebel group controlling territory" we can put anything for Rebel Group but not the Type part. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing that I really appreciate is your thoughtfulness and sensitivity. There have been specific times when I have felt under pressure or similar in editing and I said that I really appreciated various thanks. Your support is always appreciated as relevant but just to let you know I don't feel so much on a Wikipedia emotional edge so much now. I'm still trying to get my motivation back in gear but otherwise things are good.

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for all the practical and emotional support when it has really counted. Thanks. GregKaye 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I fell obligated to warn you about the three revert rule. It states that anyone making reverts to the same page more than three times in a 24 hour period can be blocked for edit warring. You have made three reverts to Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. This material does not fall under any of the exemptions. If you feel the material you are reverting is personal attacks you need to report it, not edit war. If you continue you can be blocked, please don't do that. -- GB fan 11:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The large body of content beyond the beheadings

I was thinking that a new broader name for the beheadings article might be: Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎. This could also fit more accurately into Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎. My thoughts are that the article currently focusses on spectacle and fillmed killings that will indicate a low level of Western focussed deaths rather than presenting a bigger picture/broader view of action in 'SIL controlled areas. Other things that also may be of note is that I have further populated Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities which gives a category link to a new (tiny stub) article on Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I choose Human rights as a base for a topic on the basis that WP has a number of articles on "Human rights in XXX" and not so many on Ethnic cleansing in the same way. Human rights is also the broader topic. Cheers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is overlap between War crimes and human rights abuses but significant differences too. I think the stub you started could be structured along the headings here Human_rights#Violations, just going point by point, and perhaps another one on War crimes with sections by type of war crime, then link the two with See also and in text references across. I think leave beheadings alone as a subset of the crimes and abuses and focus on the big picture but with more details, which becomes daughter article of ISIL for the growing out of control war crimes/human rights abuse section. For example, I just read they executed two men for homosexuality - a different category of human rights abuse from "treatment of civilians" or mass killing of captives. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added this edit as a start. I think that the context of a larger context must be maintained. I think that the group may be conscious to present their actions as them verses the west which presents a very distorted view of the situation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL edits

I am not sure if this was your edit in ISIL recently: "UNESCO's Director General warns that ISIL is destroying Iraq's cultural heritage in what she termed "cultural cleansing". UNESCO reports examples of", and the sentence stops there. Did you intend to add something? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the fragment P123ct1. It is all fixed now. I also added to the section on destruction of cultural and religious history - maybe you can check that over too? Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look at that. When you added more info on Misty Buswell, I think you may have inadvertently edited on an old version or something, as I am sure you didn't mean to revert so many changes as appear there! (Some of them were my copy-eds, e.g. the wikilink for "NGO", the "takfiri" wikilink, some in your report on child soldiers, and my revert putting the terrorist designations back to where they were in "Criticism".) These changes must be accidental, surely. I know Gazkthul once did this accidentally when he was only trying to change one passage, so it must be easy to do! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For sure, I never intended to modify anything but the two subsections I edited. Should I revert- you can revert if that helps. I can't fix it right now due to real life pressures. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's late here (UK), so if I can't do a simple revert (may be complicated), I'll put a note on the Talk page to say don't panic to editors. I've already informed Greg as he was upset earlier about the positioning of the terrorist designation part. Do you remember I did this once and you jokingly said I should be put in the stocks and pelted? Had forgotten about that until just now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit-Warring Noticeboard

I was looking through zzz's edits and discovered that you have just taken him to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard. I support you in that. He clearly has every intention of continuing to edit-war, after originally saying he would not edit the page any more and, as Gregkaye said, I am all for nipping trouble in the bud once it becomes clear what an editor's intentions are or what sort of behaviour they are likely to pursue. When that point is reached is a matter of judgment, of course, but in this case I think it is very obvious that point has been reached. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just read his "defence" on the Edit-Warring Noticeboard. I cannot believe he thinks that red herring will impress whoever adjudicates this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS edit

I know you rewrote this part, but there must be something missing, because it reads: "There are thousands to tens of thousands of foreign fighters in ISIL's ranks. Estimates include nearly 1,000 from Chechnya (source 1), including senior commander Abu Omar al-Shishani, perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain, and elsewhere in Europe (source 2), more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans, (source 3) and around 1,000 Turk (source 4). By October 2014, 2,400–3,000 Tunisians (source 5) and were fighting in Iraq and Syria." Some of it seems to be quote but where does it start, and it says 500 from Europe and then 2,000 from Europe. What went wrong? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember that. Originally it was a series of sentences I condensed. Different sources=different numbers of europeans. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You have "In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many existing boundaries of provinces— which they call wilayah—to subdivide its claimed territory". I thought "wilaya" was the name for provinces generally, not just ISIL's name for them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Iraq lists 18 muhafazah, also known as governorates or provinces. [Governorates of Syria]] is divided into fourteen governorates, or Muhafazah (which can also be translated province). Wilayah is usually translated as "province", rarely as "governorate". They choose the word Wilayah because that is the word used in the last caliphate for its constituent parts. There appears to be no big functional difference between the terms which are all used in various countries. I went with an english word that means both arabic terms followed by ISILs arabic word. Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have altered it to "In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many existing boundaries of provinces—wilayah—to subdivide its claimed territory"? Is that accurate? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

that sort of drops the fact ISIL calls them Wilayah, which is useful to know when reading on. Not a big deal though as the reader can figure it out.Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what I said before – I deleted it as I thought I had misunderstood, but you have confirmed I was right after all:

"So to make it clear that these "wilayah" are ISIL's, not the general "wilayah", what about this:

"In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many of the existing boundaries of provinces to subdivide its claimed territory; it calls these divisions wilayah."?

I think that would help readers who understand "wilayah" to mean provinces in general, as I did, when there were other references to "wilayah" in this article (which have now been cut)."

Is that more accurate? There are then the links to fill out this information as you say. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many of the existing Governorate boundaries to subdivide its claimed territory; it calls these divisions wilayah." I think most English speakers can understand Governorate, which is the more correct term and the linking helps further. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: See this essay about ISIL governance in Syrian territories [4].GreyShark (dibra) 15:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

UN terrorist designation

Just to let you know, I looked closely at all those links you gave yesterday and as you say it is clear that the UN have designated ISIL as a terrorist organisation, by its association with al-Qaeda. The clincher is that article by the international lawyer (although there is technically some legal dispute about it, but that is lawyers for you). The wiki article on UNSC Resolution 1267 was particularly helpful and am glad it has been wikilinked in this article. I think someone may dispute the sanctions list citation, though, as the designation is not clear from that. It has to be read in conjunction with the wiki article to see how it all fits in, but there is nothing much we can do about that; the links are all there for anyone who wants to look into it. @Gregkaye: ~ P-123 (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct, and I'd add that ISIL disassociating themselves from AQ, or AQ disassociating themselves from ISIL, or mutual disassociation/outright war on each other does not remove the terrorist designation right? Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. That's a question for a lawyer! Interesting point. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Opponents – ISIS

Have just been copy-editing your new additions to the "Opponents" section and don't know if this earlier part will now need adjusting: "Note: These opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL; (c) transnational organizations coordinating or supporting such States." What that is referring to seems a little unclear now. (As a complete layman in this I think I can speak for the general reader here.) Perhaps you are intending to adjust this? (Don't know how the grammatical error, "These opponents list is ...", crept in - I remember copy-editing this note some time ago.) ~ P-123 (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, please would you use the WP cite templates when adding footnotes and not leave bare URLs for other editors to convert. I have noticed quite a few that are yours. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No nation recognizes ...

Sorry to drag this up again. It has bothered me before as you know. I thought the ongoing sovereign state discussion presented a good opportunity to iron out this sentence once and for all. We don't want another zzz to come along and criticize editors on the page! I just think the sentence needs to be recast slightly. I hope there are no hard feelings. P-123 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly I think your arguments on the point are junk - especially the one on how Obama's speeches are crafted. I've just drafted 4 responses and deleted each because I can't come up with a response that is not insulting to you. Please drop the topic, add the cites provided to the article, delete your reply on talk, and let's just deal with editors that try to insert statements that are not verifiable. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that is exactly the sort of response I expected.[Deleted by P-123] I won't be deleting my comment as I do not think the sentence as it stands is verifiable. I think it is an important point. Let other editors comment and agree or disagree. P-123 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This next edit was placed on my talk page by an editor who has otherwise expressed a desire for an interaction ban with me. I had to backspace the what I was starting to write here. I didn't know what to do with the content. I only delete for other people benefit so, sorry, I'm dumping it here:

• Another example of why editors are driving me away from this page. P-123 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with me. P-123 you perhaps you are entitled to replace content on my page. I really don't know the rules but I will collapse as irrelevant. Please don't scatter your criticism. You know how procedures work and can take any personal action you want. Fight battles directly. Represent content directly. Keep within guidelines. It you want to engage in dialogue with me here about related matters I will be happy to hear you out but you were recently appealing for an interaction ban. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Be careful. I said I was "tempted" to ask for an IBAN.) P-123 (talk)

P-123 this is another occasion where specifying would really help. Which sentence? Visiting editors won't have a clue. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Have some respect for another editor's Talk page, please. P-123 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Have some respect for edits and threads, please. I didn't know what to do with this. I apologised for action. I acted as I wanted. Legacypac can do as s/he wants from the situation. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Legacypac. P-123 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect your editing most of the time but you are over analysing stuff in the abstract. Its wikipedia - anyone can edit and will. Its not goin to be perfect. There is no need to copy edit and challenge every sentence until other editors loose patience with you. Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a copy-editing point, though. It is one of two sentences that have stuck out like a sore thumb as unverified (you know the other, not your edit). The rest are fine. I can't seem to make you understand my point and perhaps that is my fault. Let us see what response the comments get. Maybe there will be none. Interesting that we are at opposite poles in our approach to editing. There were bound to be clashes, I suppose! Both types are needed. I admire your industry in providing facts for the article. P-123 (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Countries and groups at war with ISIL

I do not think that it is right to put Israel on any opponents list. At most another listing may be added but on supporters or something. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Wilayats

Legacy, i'm really appreciating your work and as a good faith would like to refrain from edit-warring on ISIL territorial claims subarticles. However, please note that your blanking is contrary to WP:BRD, specially in light of 3 delete discussions, currently ongoing. Please refrain from blanking until the discussions are concluded and of course it would be best if all Wilayat articles would have been put under a single deletion proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I feel your restoring of these stubs is contrary to BRD because one was already deleted and others were correctly redirected. At least one other is headed for full deletion. All have very limited, thinly sourced content, that is unlikely to be expandable. When you search the titles often only WP comes up. Why not first develop a bit of content under ISIL territorial claims to justify the need for stand alone articles? Are you restoring these because you think they are needed or because of a perceived procedural issue? Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly agree to merge some of them - especially those with no evidence of existence like Syrian coast Wilaya, but several are very much notable - the ar-Raqqa Wilaya (fully controlled by ISIL for many months), the Derna Wilaya in Libya (basically a terrorist group with territorial control, claiming allegiance to ISIL), Sinai Wilaya (a splinter terrorist group from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis). Also i would like to ask you to self revert of Wilayat Haleb (ISIL) [5], where you said "...daesh does not even control this area, so how can they have a government there?", but Daesh do actually control most of the Syrian Aleppo Governorate including the outskirts of Aleppo city and most of Kobane Canton (see the map), having a full administration setup. See [6],[7],[8].GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The content is better dealt with in ISIL territorial claims (where I originally put the list of claimed divisions, and for divisions with limited info). There is a better article already at 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna. For Raqqa, the model for ISIL governance, info should be included in the main ISIL article and the ISIL territorial claims. Around Kobani they have not held ground long enough to establish anything much, it's very much a war zone, with shifting fronts. ABM or Province of Sinai needs an article because it is outside Iraq and Syria and part of a different conflict, but they don't seem to really govern anything, just a terrorist group that blows things up, and the article should reflect terrorist group not a regional government structure. Something like ISIL in Sinai. Setting up nearly 20 provincial articles only legitimizes them on par with Iraqi Governorates or US States, and most are just fiction or not notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Listen, i didn't say they have an administration of Kobani; i said they have administration of Aleppo Wilayat (including city of Aleppo and Kobani area, both battlefields), but they do control most of Aleppo province on the ground and have a functional Wilayat - it is clearly described here. On the issue of ISIL in Sinai - i don't mind to rename the Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL) to ISIL in Sinai, but why do you want to delete it? let's just rename it and it is fine from both views (we can say in the article that they call themselves a Wilayah of ISIL, but don't control any ground as of 2014).GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still ok with ISIL in Sinai and will help you build it Grayshark09 with the focus on the group rather then a geographic entity. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks 2

I won't go into details but WP seems to be getting on top of me at the moment. The thanks really lifted and was much appreciated

GregKaye ✍♪ 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I understand why you made it. I have left this message with GraniteSand. P-123 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, I do not understand what you mean in your first sentence and do not understand why you are posting here. You have given unsolicited comment on another users talk page: "I hope you can knock some sense into them". To me this is ludicrous POV pushing and your ongoing belligerent and against guideline campaigning, of which you know better, has got to stop. Why did you post here? 10 minutes before your edit you agreed to leave me in peace. How is this not hounding? If you do want to reply then I suggest you do so on your talk page. After all the contention that you have recently raised over interaction, your post here is not appreciated. 04:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye ✍♪ 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Civility in war

I've only just learned that its not an oxymoron. Out of personal interest can you advise as to whether the Syrian Civil War is a civil war? ty GregKaye ✍♪ 03:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a few definitions here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Civil_war Using the US Army definition: A war between factions of the same country there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: 1. the contestants must control territory (govt, kurds, ISIL, Opposition) have a functioning government (Kurds for sure by public consent, ISIL by brut force) enjoy some foreign recognition (Opposition is officially recognized as legitimate govt by many countries) , have identifiable regular armed forces (true of all sides), and engage in major military operations (yes). Deaths are also over 1000 a year.

The conflict started as a revolution, which is basically a type of conflict less serious then a civil war. Its also not an international war as no foreign country has invaded, or apparently plans to invade. International assistance to civil war sides is common, and does not make a civil war not a civil war. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Legacypac, Thanks for that. I would have replied earlier but sadly I've been busy. I will be interested to see how the Iraq debate turns out.

I've just noticed the article Civil war in Iraq (2006–07) I'm guessing that this is the one for the proposed move. Otherwise I think there should be consistency the other way. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

As you know, many articles are being created which are Wilayat type most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks to you and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just propaganda) ? or should we stop their creation? How? Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor that started most of them was indef banned. You could ask for the deleted titles to be SALTed. Problem is there are many valid spelling variations. If new ones get created we can use speedy deletion tags. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How's blacklisting those titles going on? Mhhossein (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Agree with you about Israel. As for Iraqi Kurdistan, they are openly working with the Coalition in Iraqi itself, but no evidence of an open co-operation in Syria has emerged. EkoGraf (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The US and UK trained them, lobbied Turkey and facilitated transit to Kobani for the Peshmerga, and are coordinating airstrikes with the Kurds generally, all indicate to me they are coalition ground troops. That is how they show on American-led intervention in SyriaLegacypac (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate your intervention in the AN/I with a proposed solution. You went out of your way to do that when you need not have done. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaiwatna Kupratakul

The information is on the talk page. All Igor wanted was to cite the content as a large section of it was uncited. That's why I reverted my edit. He said to me that he removed it so that others could cite it on the talk page and that if it didn't belong then it was gone. "Win-win". [[9]]. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 09:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor the facetious xmas bunny

Could you please not go to articles you haven't edited before to tangle with Igor the facetious xmas bunny. Obviously there is animosity between the two of you, and that can cause people to act impetuously. To avoid conflict, I am asking both of you to stop fighting. Simply let Igor do as he will. If he's doing wrong, it will become evident and any deep hole he digs for himself will swallow him. When you get in there and fight over every edit it just muddies the waters. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you've missed the ping, this came up at my talk page, and I've left a note to you there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

constitucion

Many thanks for your contribution to this article it was much appreciated

Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. 30/12/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.243.182 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

About the ISIL revert

I have reverted my edit but please consider this, for example only you can add the word "counter" only to a movement or a strategy like "counter the islamic state threat".Secondly I think conflict sounds a bit ridiculous when paired the less significant opponents at war with the IS i.e other conflicts.Please let me know what you think of this.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason foren daniel (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have changed the heading preceding my AN/I edit of 12:11, 30 December 2014 "More back and forth" to "Further discussion" which is a repeated heading title. I hope that this is alright.

As you know there have been extraordinarily long running issues between me and P-123 and this has in the lead to Christmas led to an extraordinary amount of, as I see it, largely unsubstantiated content on administrator and suspected administrator threads mainly started by P-123. I am shattered and exhausted with this and, as I see it, this is one chance to actually get things resolved. P-123 suggested the AN/I. I think it fair to have the opportunity to pursue it.

The situation has shown signs of being frosty with this editor habitually deleting messages that I have placed on his/her talk page and me asking that content not be placed on mine unless warranted by specific reason. That is the situation at present.

10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Ping: PBS GregKaye 10:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are both fighting for the sake of fighting. No one else is really interested in reading all the back and forth. I doubt any Admin is going to sanction anyone unless they sanction both of you to stop the fight. I don't like much of the stuff he writes esp misunderstanding NPOV but you, me or anyone is not going to change his mind, so I suggest moving on and just disengaging. All sorts of crazy behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia sadly. Just work with me to keep ISIL balanced with actual edits, and ignore the efforts to bait and annoy. Legacypac (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, there may be a response from admin that may get through. As I said, once the AN/I is done, I am done. It's depressing. I don't know why WP bothers with guidelines that it does not support or enforce. For the last three weeks I have not wanted any of this. Multiple threads were started about me left and right. I started one myself but this was done in the context of what felt like an onslaught. A new thread was started in the early hours of Christmas Day. That's the context. Anyway, happy new year. I hope it brings you peace. GregKaye 14:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Personal attacks and insults like this are not acceptable here. It is acceptable to privately disagree with another Wikipedian, however plastering this sort of content over multiple talk pages is not the way to resolve disputes. Knock it off, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Please make formal report to Wikipedia. Nestwiki (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Provinces of ISIL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G4 is for reposts. The content is completely different, and tagging it for G4 deletion is a serious abuse of the procedure. Yes, you must go through another debate. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Already started, and It's the same, well before the previous version was stripped down with all the deletes, but hey you never saw that. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, I reviewed multiple deleted revisions and multiple revisions of this page, and no deleted revision is even close to the current page. Did you seriously think that all of the edits by 175.110.139.126 caused it to end up being identical to the deleted content? Likewise, what about the original edit to which you reverted? Now that I've looked at every deleted revision, I can assure you that every deleted revision was a navbox with a list of links; it was never close to being simply ISIL has large number of self proclaimed provinces. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the page creation edit was just a throw-a-way one liner. Maybe I'm not clear on how close the pages need to be to qualify for G4. The edits by IP 126 created a nav box with substantially similar content to the nav box deleted at Template:Wilayats of ISIL even using the contrived format Wilayat xyz (ISIL) for each of the links. The box appearance was a little different sure, but content and purpose is the same. The major difference is that the Template:Wilayats of ISIL box linked to a bunch of pages that were mostly redirects to the ISIL territorial claims or stub articles. Since those article were all deleted the new version Template:Provinces of ISIL contained 11 links to ISIL territorial claims piped with the deleted redirect and stub article titles. To me this is recreation of a deleted template in an attempted workaround the previous 28 deletions made after community input across 7 debates so far that rejected the template and all the (this time piped) link names inside it - even as redirects. Your view might be different. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting of your comment on an admin's talk page

FYI User talk:P-123#Blocked for 48 hours -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:193.109.196.115

I saw the threat and the swearing but I can't block for either of those. I could have used edit warring but I saw BLP in the drop down list of block reasons first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Your comment on user talk:P-123 diff, and all of your comments to User talk:GregKaye after this one were not constructive.[10]

You are not to add a comment to either of those user's talk pages for at least a week unless they first leave a message on your talk page. If you prefer I can make this formal by invoking the ISIL general sanctions, but I would prefer to leave it informal and hope that you will see that it is time to let things quieten down.[11] -- PBS (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sick of that drama. You (and me) try to help and all you (and me) get is flack. Already decided to stay away from them and do something more interesting. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)

Hey, this redirect is nominated for deletion but there's no tag showing this matter in the redirect page! Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Great catch. The redirect was deleted about 1/2 way through the discussion, but then LightandDark2000 recreated it about an hour later. I've just renominated it for speedy deletion. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. LightandDark2000 should've respected the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Barry Goldwater quote

At the Edward Brooke talk page: you removed the comment as racist, but actually, in that time during the 60s, Blacks were called "Negro" not just by non-Blacks but by Blacks as well. It was not seen as racist. Just saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about - perhaps you confused my edit with someone elses? Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, so sorry. I can't believe I looked at the diff backwards. Time to pack it in for the night, I think! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Foreign fighters article

Here's something I was about to enter at Talk:ISIL but didn't want to derail your thread.

There may be many possible titles that could be used but suggestions may also include International reaction to foreign fighters in Islamist rebel groups, International response to foreign fighters in rebel groups based in Iraq and Syria or International response to foreign fighters in rebel groups in the Middle East. 1, 2, 3, 4.

These are just outsider thoughts and I realise that you have done a lot more research into this type of topic than me. GregKaye 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just threw out an idea for a title and am looking for a better one. I keep reading about countries trying to do something about the problem - it is an official goal of the Counter ISIL coalition too. ISIL says "come join the caliphate" but everyone else says its illegal. For example Malaysia just arrested 3 headed for ISIL, and UK stopped young girls headed to Syria. Maybe International efforts to stop jihadists Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know I have long personally regarded "Jihadist" as being what I have come to discover is called a value laden label. The creation of such an article would be up to you but I would counsel something like International responses to militant Islamists. Jihad is a rarely mentioned but central concept in the Quran where as jihadism, as you know, is something that is by definition further out towards the fringes of Islamic doctrines. Islamism is the term more widely used in sources. The problem as I see it is either Islamist's who attempt to exert pressure through international terrorist attack of other radicals that have groups that operate locally against other denominations of Islam or other religion. GregKaye 11:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert and explaining to Mhhossein. P-123 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Filemover req

I don't mean you are not qualified for Filemover - I mean you are in the wrong page. Most files used on English Wikipedia is hosted on Commons (Except for Fair Use images).

But based on your contributions on Commons, I would like you to see more filemove request before granting you the filemover there. — Revi 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

About the edits to the ISIL header

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You must understand that ISIL is referred to by the media by many names Daʿish,DAESH,Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or simply by Islamic state, it would be unwise removing these titles and threby confusing the readers who identify or get information from the article, so I strongly suggest you to undo those changes.Thank you. Update stormtrooper (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you look at the finished product of my edits you will find that all the names are there in the first paragraph. Please carefully read this article and relevant references before making edits - it got about 600,000 reads last month, so we want to get it right. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did you Delete the new section: Justification based on religious texts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reverting another persons edits without discussing them or notifying is incredibly rude, it indicates the persons hard work compiling information from various sources and putting them to order.It looks like yo have a history of doing this looking at other user's reaction from talk pages. I see that you have a history of edit wars all these traits are not the doings of a constructive editor.So being a gentleman I invite you to discuss things like human beings do and the last thing you would want is, to get involved in an edit war are result your account getting blocked. Update stormtrooper (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, I moved it to the talk page temporarily with comments for improvement. Kindly read WP:AGF and refrain from talking about blocking me or my edit history - I've got over 5000 edits since 2007 while you joined 5 days ago. I am happy to work with you, but you'll have difficulties here with other editors with the combative attitude you are displaying so far toward me. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly denying what you actually did, I do not understand what you meant by stating that you joined in 2007, does that mean you're more comparatively more educated and that I should learn from you, you really seem like a rude person who cannot be reasoned with.I'm reverting your changes, try to be more nice next time I'm done talking to you. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you a child? Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment accusing me of acting like a child describes what kind of a person you are.Kindly read WP:AGF, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Update stormtrooper (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No it was a sincere question because your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike. You restored without commenting on my concerns on the talk page. That is bad. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The history of a person describes what kind of a person he is, justifiably speaking the person is subject to change or maybe he wont.I became frustrated because you reverted my edit which I compiled and corrected grammatical errors.i clearly do not know what you are talking about. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied to the talk page - where it has its own section. Please discuss there, not here where few will see your comments. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And you've done it again. What is wrong with you, I told you to notify me and wait for my comment. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you revert again I will take this for Administrative action. Use the article talk page. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay I accept that it is my fault because I did not insert the citations near the corresponding sentences, but that doesn't mean you can revert the edit. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who moved the passage to the talk page yet you seem to have not made any changes to it.What are you doing? Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DONE, the matter is closed.I have copy edited and placed citation references near the claims. Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of talk

Hello legacypac, an editor has posted something on my talk page which I have now given due consideration to. I do not know what the policy is here but I would like to inform you that I will discuss some of your points on my talk page. I will tag your name into my reply on my talk page so you are aware. Mbcap (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Move moratorium

I will not extend the move moratorium on ISIL. The moratorium has been very successful in damping down the page title dispute, but it is important that the page title is debated from time to time. I have no idea what is the most frequently used name for this organisation, but it is important that this is debated and if there is a consensus to move based on the WP:AT policy parameters that it is implemented. Once the debate is over there is no reason why a new moratorium should not be imposed under the general sanctions if in the judgement of an administrator it is desirable. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I expect we should have a debate. My preference is to extend the moratorium after the debate. So do we have open season for move requests or focus the issue into one debate on possible names vs no change. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Civil War

Hello, I just wanted to bring my revert of this edit (which you accepted) to your attention. I'm not going to be too critical of your decision to accept it because I'm very familiar with the subject and it still took me a few minutes to work out what was going on, but the IP moved one of he most prominent rebel leaders into the list of pro-government commanders. Please do make sure you check pending edits carefully, and if you're not sure, it's often best to leave it to somebody more familiar with the subject or ask at a relevant wikiproject. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked the guy's wikipage and it seemed like he was being listed on the right side, but it was confusing. Good multiple people watch these things. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of my ANI comment

Hello Legacypac, I would like to let you know that I have contributed to an ANI discussion that you are a party to. When I went into the source on that page to put my comment in, I was told to inform users I would be speaking about so here I am. Mbcap (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. To clarify policy, you only need to notify the involved editor if you start an ANi or similar, not when replying to an existing discussion. I'm sorry its been a tough week for you. I'm sure not trying to make it worse. Good luck on those exams, and don't worry, Wikipedia will still be still be here when you have more time. Now I should go do something more productive myself. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. When I clicked on edit source to submit my comment, a big warning came saying I should inform and I was not sure if it applied to me. Here, here now Legacypac, apologies are not needed again, for my impression is that you have acted in good faith. Not to mention you have drove me, to plough through a tonne of policy for which I should be expressing gratitude. You have also been very patient with me during my interactions with you which due to my arrogance or partial understanding of policy, have sometimes led me to level direct accusation against you and maybe GregKaye as well. The aetiology of the difficult week is multi-factorial and the SP accusations were and are very hurtful. Now I am a duck as well because I quack like one. But I guess if the alleged duck is not killed, the duck will only get stronger. Now stop with your apologies, it makes me feel guilty. Mbcap (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you were actually taken to SPI (Sock puppet investigation) but I've been taken there and I have never used a sock. If you are not Socking, just ignore the allegations. DocError misunderstood what I accused him of, and you fell for his misunderstanding. I meant he was stalking me (following me around Wikipedia) and canvassing other editors (by both going to talk pages and pinging them to comment against me). Pretty good evidence of both unacceptable activities. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

(In response to your review comment to me) Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Auto reviews

These two posts to user talk:DocumentError who has been blocked in part because of the ANI you initiated are ill advised. Don't bother to try to justify them under the auspices of peace feelers, because give the bad faith between you it is more likely that they will be viewed as you dancing on a grave.

I suggest that you revert the edits and keep up your self imposed interaction ban with this editor until such time as your paths cross when editing article in a mutual area of interest, and when that happens try your best to keep the conversation factual about the specific edits (no accusations or comments on the motives for the edit such as pro-Iranian and anti-American) and only on that article's talk page.

I am disappointed that I have had to raise this issue with you after my reprimand above as I think both incidents shows a lack of good judgement on your behalf. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my User:PBS - I sure never intended to post anything to his page! So sorry about that. I never want to interact with him. Those were autogenerated notices by the New Page feed tool I was using it to plow through dozens of articles, a new process for me. When you hit next on the list you don't see who created the article unless you go looking, and I don't go looking when I see a well formed article, just hit the check for reviewed and the next button. Honest, no grave dancing from me. Had I realized he was the author I would have skipped those two. Thanks for pointing them out since I'd likely would not have seen them (don't pay attention to his page) but I've just deleted the notices with an appropriate edit summary. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not realise that they were auto-generated, that does put a some what different light on the issue, and I am gald to see that you removed the comments. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed your right as a reviewer. If you're not checking article histories and seeing who the creator is, you're not doing your job. only (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me only? - if you see a fully formed well formated fully sourced article with categories about a non-controversial subject that has been live for months, why would you check who created it? It's not relevant. I am checking out who creates junk and hunting down any and all related junk. Just check my logs. Please explain your action better than that. These two articles: Delta Kappa Phi and Tau Sigma are at issue.anyway, what you stripped was "Pending Changes Reviewer" which is a much different process focussed on reviewing pending edits to protected articles, very different that the range of possible actions at New Article Reviewing that any autoconfirmed user can do. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is to document the developments of the Auto reviews issue so that it is all in one place for easy reference in the currently open ANI § Harassment case (and for any of the admins who have a passing interest in this issue):

• After a review, "Pending changes reviewer" was re-enabled for user:Legacypac by user:MusikAnimal (06:46, 9 January 2015).
• At the ANI § Harassment Legacypac has explained why DocumentError's pages came up for review by Legacypac

A bit of explanation. When I tried NewPagePatrol I had read (what I now realize today) is only some of the instructions (which are spread across various pages I now learn). Seeing the massive 90+ day general que I set the filters to Unpatrolled+Created by Blocked Users and started from the oldest ones thinking that such pages have a somewhat higher chance of being junk/vandalism etc. and I'd be less likely to offend some new well meaning editor if I made a mistake since the editors are (I thought long-term/indef) blocked anyway. Because I was working from a much much smaller pool, and DocumentError was currently blocked but evidently had some of the oldest unreviewed pages, it is easy to see how I inadvertently encountered his pages. The two I looked earlier, I just green checked since they were 10 times better developed then most of the new pages and had obviously had experienced editor attention already. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A question for you

See Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move December 2014 -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

AN/I No 2

Too late there now to ping you, but thanks for your support. I am really sorry you got into trouble over your messages to me (which I took the wrong way at the time, sorry. I never issued a complaint about them, by the way). You have helped me in several difficult situations recently and it is much appreciated. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention it. IPs are blocked. Keep a list of links in your archives or sandbox to these threads so they can be pulled out if you are harassed again. Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have archived those links. I am convinced those two IPs are the same person, and that they are also the IP who harassed a few days ago, when Bishonen stepped in and semi-protected my Talk page! The 23.xx IP also harassed on the Talk page of The Fourteen Infallibles (see after my first list there). That makes four times and three venues where I think the same person has harassed in the last few days! ~ P-123 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

I'm volunteering to take the Boko Haram DRN case. I can't see any reports in the DRN archive about particular problems. Looking at the talk page, I assume the DRN request is concerning the 'Background - APC' section?

Thanks DocHeuh (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, User:Heuh0 thanks so much. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Momin Khawaja and your edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a massive edit on Momin Khawaja on Jan 4 2015 and you are taking sides if you want to be fair revert it to Nov 30 based on your edits Im gussing your part of the internet media Intelligence community. Beforyouwere (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'll stay on my side since it was my massive revert to clean up your crazy POV vandalism followed by a few editors further fixing the mess up. See ya after your block I guess. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Please consider COI

Hello Legacypac, I was going to write this in the proposed move discussion page but I thought I would do it here. I think you may have a conflict of interest (as seen here[12]) which may impact the decisions you make in regards to the ISIL topic. This is specially so for the new move request. I kindly ask that you withdraw yourself from the discussion on the proposed move. Since I understand you may dispute and not accept my suggestion, do I have your permission to let PBS know so he can arbitrate between us two here. Thank you Mbcap (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How is expressing an opinion and asking for guidance on correct procedure for an upcoming event a COI ? You are free to ask anyone including User:PBS anything you want. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness and thank you for givig permission. Mbcap (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Legacypac, I was just encouraged to read WP:COI by an editor. Having read it, it is very clear that you do not have a COI per Wikipedia definition. I would like to apologise unreservedly for making a false accusation against yourself above and also on the talk page for ISIL. I have struck the comment there. Would you allow me to do the same here? I hope you can overlook this clear indiscretion. Mbcap (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification

There is a request for clarification in which you are named here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Awarded for your efforts to keep non-notable material promoting a known terrorist organization off of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unit articles

Re WP:Articles for deletion/Square chain: I don't know if you have seen User:Johnuniq/sandbox3#Square chain. I would suggest discussing some related articles together, rather than individual AfDs. That's just a thought in case you were not aware of the aggregated list—sorry if this not news. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not know about that - thanks. I was just plowing through New Article Reviews. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. When tagging for Speedy Deletion please be sure to use the correct CSD criterion. For more information how to patrol pages, in particular listing for deletion, please see WP:DELETION. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentError (talk • contribs)

ICCA

Legacypac, thanks for the quick review and information on clubs and section A7, I went to pull down the article but it was already pulled. I'll work on re-writing the article with more detail on it's history, role in creating a new market and the technical journal it produced as an association which is referenced by many wiki pages. That should be enough to meet the A7 requirments... Keep up the great work keeping articles up to par!

Ralph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rctillinghast (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Please repost my page, I need some more time to work on it.. Thank you Ok. Thanks, will do. Just curious, as I am new to wikipedia, what needs to be added in order for the page not to be deleted. My page is about a small magazine which we publish and distribute for free, not trying to advertise anything... Any ideas? Thanks!! Moshiachweely (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Havens

Hi Legacypac,

Havens was not done as promotion - I'm not related to the Havens family or business but are currently adding pages for all new and old department stores in the UK as my contribution to the Wiki project regarding department stores. Havens is I believe the second oldest business to survive in Southend after Ravens clothes store, and so should be on Wikipedia. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Cool - be sure to comment on the related thread, or talk page for the page because that definately sounds notable. Legacypac (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Replies

1. Mosiach Weekly. User indeffed as a sockpuppet, this is at least the fourth account created by this user to evade former blocks, and the names all breach our user name policy
2. I saw your message to User:Davidstewartharvey. As it stands, the text does not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is sourced only to the store itself, and single shops are not usually notable. I see no actual indication of why it is notable either. I don't think it will survive in article space yet, but I'm always prepared to recreate in a user sandbox for further work if the creator wants me to do so

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

1. perfect - that one smelled of trouble.
2. agree, definitely in the form I saw it in, it was not notable. If it really is historically significant, article needs to show that. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A little help?

I keep seeing these boxed discussions in a lot of talk page, like this one you just did[13]. What are they and what are they used for? Is there somewhere I could go to read about them? Apologies for the bother. Mbcap (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's called archiving and is a form of housekeeping to keep things organized and focus discussion. Basically any editor can put a box around a discussion and close it. It is also technically possible for another editor to reverse that archiving action, though they better have a good reason. Once closed (if a bot is enabled to achieve the page like at ISIL) the discussion will be swept off to the archives page soon. Archiving needs to be done very carefully because you don't want to close off an ongoing discussion and annoy people. Involved editors should not archive things, unless, like I just did on the New Flag thread where I did actually participate, it is a really super clear issue that has been solved and there is no point discussing it further. No one would object to anyone closing that discussion so I did. Archiving can be done on any discussion, but is always used to close RfC (request for comment), RM (Requested Moves) and similar vote type threads as a way to signal the discussion is over and it is action time. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, makes a lot of sense. Mbcap (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

G5

G5 requires that all substantial edits be from banned/blocked users, (and, after they've been banned/blocked). Stop adding CSD tags to articles until you take the time to understand the relevant criteria. WilyD 10:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive - they were created by the 20th ot ==r whatever sock of a banned user. If that is not what the criteria means it is 100% pointless because a blocked user can't create an article after they are blocked. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Beetstra does not appear to be a blocked or banned user editing in violation of their block/ban, User:Dstoli1770 does not appear to be a blocked or banned user editing in violation of their block/ban. (Blocked/banned users can create articles after their block/ban - block/ban evasion ain't hard). If you don't understand the speedy deletion criteria, stop adding speedy deletion tags. That kind of disruption is unhelpful. WilyD 10:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dstoli1770 is a single purpose editor, check what they wrote on their user page and in a couple early edit summaries that he is the subjects Uncle. Posted the info directly from a bio the subject emailed him/her. Maybe a sock of the same sockmaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dstoli1770 or working with the company that seems to be behind the accts Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If the edits were removed first, and then Dstoli1770 got them mailed to them and they posted it, then that he is a meatpuppet, which get treated the same as sockpuppets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CSD is not a tool to achieve "the right outcome" - it's a tool to achieve uncontroversial outcomes. When you have to make an argument, it's not a good tool (even if he got the text from his niece, he's not necessarily a meatpuppet - if his niece asked him to do it, he would be, but if he asked her for it, because he's a fan, he wouldn't be). Discussions are not evils to be feared - when things need a discussion, have one. WilyD 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maureen_Montagne&action=edit&redlink=1 Identical article deleted under A7 - just a different state. Legacypac (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a mistake, I'll get it fixed. WilyD 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I did that one and another one as a test. It was speedied. So now you accuse me of doing the wrong thing and will wheelwar? Do I have to put these all up in one big delete discussion? Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

An obviously bad nomination going through because an admin was a little careless (not that surprising, since the writing was rough) is not a good reason to make a bunch more obviously bad nominations. If you've looked and can't find other sources, redirection is probably appropriate. If there are good sources, add them. A mass nomination (especially in cases where it's unlikely that the correct outcome is the same for all articles) is a bad idea. And of course, saying I'm going to wheelwar is silly at best and needlessly bad faith at worst - I pointed out to the admin they missed the assertion of significance, they agreed, and redirected the article. WilyD 13:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, I am not a substantial editor, I just enforced policy/guideline on the page - if the rest are socks, it can go to G5. I do recognise that that page is really thin, and attempts to promote the subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As they stand, if better sources can't be found, they can probably all be reasonably redirected. I don't particularly care. But after an article is not deleted at AfD, applying an optional speedy deletion criterion that may not be applicable is a bad idea. WilyD 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regan_Hartley - arguement made they all have articles - looks like that is only because the pagent organizer created all those articles. If someone cares - they can look on the list of winners in the pageant articles. Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

'they all have articles' is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-argument. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Commercial pageant business decides to build high value links by setting up a one or two line article for each of the 50 state winners for each year, plus articles on each year of each pageant they run. Massive link farm with no real reader benefit. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hello Legacypac, I imagine you are interested in terrorism related articles so I would like your assistance on the Al-Qaeda portal[14]. It is in a sorry state. It should either be improved to reflect other portals or deleted until someone can maintain it. What do you advise? Mbcap (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks useless and unloved. I just nominated it for deletion. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Party of Canada

Thanks for helping the guy by rewriting this, but I have moved it to Draft:Social Justice Party of Canada because I don't think it is ready for prime time yet - we shouldn't let them use WP as another place like Twitter and Facebook to make their announcement. I'm not clear whether they are a serious contender likely to win seats and influence the political scene, or just a no-hope fringe group, and it will take time after they actually launch on Monday for that to become clear. See User talk:Canadian007#Article moved to Draft space, Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good solution. They have no chance in hell of winning seats, or getting much traction at all, but if they run candidates and are an official party they get a page here like other minor parties. Policies will not appeal to many Canadians since they are pretty close to the NDP (official opposition). Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary restraints

Inform me on my talk page if you are willing to accept the voluntary restraints I have suggested on my closing of the ANI#Harassment case. Note also my request that you strike you last two comments even though the section is now closed to further edits. Please respond within 24 hours of reading this notice. -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Maybe my "Google-Foo" is simply luck, but I've enjoyed bringing a few articles back from the edge. Your withdrawals are most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a team effort at Wikipedia. If it looks really doubtful, we send for a deletion discussion. From there it can be saved and improved, redirected, or deleted. No shame in any outcome. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will assume this was a mistake

I just noticed you did this[15]. I will assume this was a mistake and that you will correct the time stamp. Mbcap (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what I did, I shifted a sentence from my following comment into the slightly earlier one and added a little to my comments to clarify. I could have added somewhere else, but I judged that to be even more confusing. Legacypac (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Reverting edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not understand what you mean by the section was copied word from word .What do you suggest we do modify it as to our liking .Undoing your changes, you seem like an abusive editor looking at your talk page.You make personal attacks by calling other editors children and having childlike maturity.All of these traits show that you are not constructiveAbsolution provider 1999 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean that whoever inserted the section copied it word for word from another source. That is a copyright violation and I appropriately removed it swiftly. Now, are you a banned user coming to evade your ban under another account? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am a banned user.Thank you for the attack, see that's what I'm talking about.Absolution provider 1999 (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please respect other wikipedians

Calling others that they publish "terrorist propaganda" just because they wrote something u don't want to see is an unacceptable behavior. And for your information I am against ISIL but in Wikipedia u have to be neutral because you are giving information to readers. Can u tell me the difrance between ISIL's wilayat and YPG's Cantons?? both are De facto entities, aren't they? 3bdulelah (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Big difference - Rojava is the recognized regional government of their area. Their independence or lack of independence is debatable, but they control because the Syrian Govt withdrew from the areas and left them in charge. ISIL took by force and is recognized by no one. Wikipedia editors have widely and completely rejected creating pages for these claimed ISIL subunits, so posting a list of them that looks all official is not helpful. The information is actually terrorist propaganda and includes claimed Whaliyats in areas that have never seen an ISIL fighter. I have made no suggestion you support ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

who recognized "Rojava"? Are u claiming that the Syrian regime recognizes Rojava? 3bdulelah (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian Govt recognizes Rojava as the state level government. They are autonomous, but are not claiming independence. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true. You are absolutely wrong. Assad doesn't recognize any autonomous area in Syria. 3bdulelah (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to add my comment, perhaps supporting 3bdulelah here, on this topic: ‘please, Legacypac, respect other Wikipedians’. I noticed that early today, Legacypac removed a part of a posting of 3bdulelah (!!) from talk page Talk:Islamic State of Iraq ! ! Mr Legacypac, I had assumed you to be wiser than to do such an intolerant thing !!
Remember Voltaire (1694–1778), who, according to legend, said: Je ne suis pas d’accord avec un mot de ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’à la mort pour votre droit de le dire (I disagree with every word you say, but I’l fight to my dying day for your right to say them). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to correct that. The quote is NOT from Voltaire but from an admirer of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who in 1906 in The Friends of Voltaire gave this aphorism as summary of Voltaire's philosophy. (Dixit NRC Handelsblad, 7 Feb 2015.) --Corriebertus (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Font

Hey, if you want to nominate multiple pages in one AfD, please follow the instructions at WP:BUNDLE, which includes most importantly putting the AfD tag on all the affected articles. Thanks, ansh666 07:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Sossaman

Did you create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Sossaman by mistake? If so, you can request its deletion by adding {{Db-self}} to the page. --VeryCrocker (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

An elaboration on my csd removal

Hey there, I just wanted to elaborate a bit more on my edit summary, since I didn't want to create a massive line of text that wouldn't make much sense. Basically, there's really no reason to G12 an article that has a history of text that isn't a copyright violation, which also kind of doubles as the fact that the article in question has existed for over a year. A G12 is generally appropriate when it's a new(ish) article and someone just copied the website and dumped it on a page, thus leaving us no hope for salvation unless someone re-writes it. I just wanted to let you know a bit more why I did what I did, just to clarify things. Either way, thanks for alerting me of that issue, as I was unaware that it was a copyright violation until tonight! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing sections

I think you are closing too many sections at talk:ISIL

• "Comment relating predominantly to Requested move 9 January 2015 above" — you were involved in that discussion and it could easily have led to a revert.
• "Error - 20th Jan 2015 entry" -- this one had already shut itself so it needed no explicit close down.

The other two are possibles, but if you are the only person closing sections on a talk page it will be seen by others that you are managing/taking ownership of the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacy,

While, having checked, I don't know how much of this is enforceable, I generally concur with the sentiments above. I would also ask you to consider the effects that the closing of discussions may have on the opinions of other editors to closure actions. This may just be my interpretation but I think that Wikipedia editors, who may be editing on a freedom of information ethic, may also have strong feelings about freedom of speech.

As you likely saw, I deliberately edited to keep the Barn door POV pushing in the lead thread open for potential discussion on the view that other viewpoints might be expressed. You can make your own interpretation regarding WP:talk page guidelines. Other editors expressed moderated views in a thread I started at wp:pump entitled How uninvolved does an editor need to be to collapse talk page threads/thread contents and how much time should be left since last edit before collapse? I would personally counsel that closures may best only be requested and threads best only be closed in more extreme circumstances. In such situations, a method of requesting closure with complications of checking through canvassing issues would be through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Best. GregKaye 19:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'edit war' on ISI

Dear colleague, I understand we both consider presenting ISI as 'unrecognized state' undesirable. Different other editors seem to disagree with us. To convince them, I think we have to be utmost clear in our arguments. In your revert, early today, you speak of "...the decisions on how to handle ISIL's claims" -- but even I have not a clue of what you are referring to, so probably mr 205.232.106.254 and mr Anasaitis have neither. I very much doubt that such vague arguments can convince anyone; I recommend you, in cases like this, to be more precise and directing, so that everyone can easily look up your 'argument' and see whether you have a point or not. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

This is a courtesy message to inform you that an arbitration clarification request in which you were listed as a party has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talk • contribs) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Socks, socks everywhere

It's times like this I have to laugh as those editors who say Wikipedia has enough admins. Suuuure, we do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to toss these dirty socks. We should just continue to delete their crap. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac Everyone is not a sock, taking into consideration that this Article receives much publicity and more readers.You can't differentiate between sock puppets.197.216.18.90 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Nice that somebody sends a thank you. Enjoy your day :-) World wide wind (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Credibility

Legacy, Pls consider cutting the "Credibility my friend, credibility" from the recent ISIL post as it may be interpretable as a criticism of the editor as well as the argument. I know that I have found communicating with this editor to be frustrating but all the same, 09:17, 26 January 2015 edited GregKaye 09:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am questioning the credibility of their arguments for a particular section - a section that they evidently did not read or can't understand because when one obvious error is pointed out they can't see how action by another group in Kenya is off topic. I'll look at modifying my comment so it can't be misinterpreted, but some editors will misinterpret darn near anything.Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are questioning the credibility of their arguments then I think you would do well for the civility of the page to present that kind of message directly.

In your 02:41, 26 January 2015 edit you raised fair objection to the against consensus replacement of a large section of text but you presented this as 'when you inserted [8] "Many quarry workers who slept early Tuesday morning in tents by their worksite outside Mandera, a Kenyan border city tucked between Ethiopia and Somalia, were attacked by Al-Shabaab a militant group."' Thank you for defending the article against non-consensus activity but please consider placing broader criticism when presenting your arguments. GregKaye 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear he never read the section he put back in, then never read the example sentence I pulled out as problematic because he could not see where it was off topic. I decided to pin point an obvious problem then make hard to prove broad assertions. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider you comments

Hello Legacypac. For an experienced editor you made a very inappropriate revert on the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi page here[[16]]. When I attempted to engage with you, your final response was this[[17]]. Please consider the way you interact with your fellow editor and try to argue the points rather than the person. I feel your attempts are a prism through which you are trying to alienate me from the topic. Mbcap (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I patrolled the changes and made a judgement call well within the range of acceptable judgement calls. My rejection of the portal link was as valid or more valid then the insertion. You reverted my patrol seemingly because I made it, just like you reverted my deletion of a sock puppet insertion. I also explained why it was a poor portal link on talk. You have questioned me on this now in in two places, and your continued questioning my judgement fairly leads to me questioning your judgement. I have no interest in alienating you from anything other then from aking non-constructive edits and bad/inaccurate lines of argument about article content. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac. I can assure you that Mbcap is a sockpuppet of Tecnophant. If he edits like a duck, is argumentative like a duck, and is a megalomaniac like a duck, HE IS A DUCK as per WP:Duck Quack Quack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.254 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your revert at Landmark Worldwide

At Landmark Worldwide, you reverted my re-removal of material from the lede that is still under discussion. In my edit summary, I indicated that there are multiple talk page sections on the subject and I pointed out that WP:ONUS is policy and is clear that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." There is no consensus to include this material here, and there is a continuing edit war to put the material in the lede without consensus. I request that you self-revert, as you have not meet the onus of achieving consensus to include this disputed content. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No I will not revert. It is a reasonable summary of an entire section in the article. Stop with the POV pushing. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Kobanî, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kirby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Miss Grand International

I like your deletion-nomination of Miss Grand International but what arguments do you have? The article was AfD'ed twice (once deleted, once no consensus) so a speedy could be a bit difficult. I know that there are a lot lot of suspected sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas) but that is no reason for deletion, as far as I know. The Banner talk 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a creation of the sockfarm, and in some cases the articles are being deleted for that. It reads totally promotional. Its not a major event. Lacks proper independent sources. Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

They will not accept that as long as ONE other user edited the article. Sad but true. Secondly, a lot of spam is protected by they argument "can be done by normal editing" (what never happens). You better use AfD. The Banner talk 14:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

organizing/linking related AFDs

Hi, I sympathize(sp?) about awkwardness of single vs. grouped AFDs about the model articles. Not sure what should be done usually. For now I want to contribute simply by helping to link the AFDs for editors to navigate between them, like a navbox. i just composed a navbox-like note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie (2nd nomination) to link amongst the related AFDs. I think I got all the ones you opened. Did i miss any? Is that it for now? (I sort of hope so, so that these all could be considered as one batch, and probably all concerned would rather it be limited.) If you agree this helps, you could copy it yourself to others. I'll pause briefly for any reply here, then would plan to copy it to the other AFDs myself. --doncram 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I love the out of the box thinking - roll on! Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good. I do think it is helpful. Sort of treating them like a virtual batch, allowing editors to go between them. The individual AFDs do have the advantage of each having the Google searches set up, and allowing more easily for separate sources to be found and discussed. I do think there ought to be some revision of guideline about when MULTIAFD should be used, vs. when not. Maybe guidance to link between related AFDs like this note does, is an intermediate alternative worth mentioning. Anyhow, will proceed. Hope it all gets sorted out eventually. --doncram 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, i see you changed the note to link to just the 8 previously nominated ones. Right, i understood that it was just 8 renominated. But I think it helps to link to those and to the other new ones, too. Or there would be need to link from the batch of 8 to the other batch. I'll try editing it differently now. Will watch there and here. --doncram 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The others are a bit more random, older, created by different editors and have a bit more content. I'm being accused of renominating too soon/too many so let's keep this clean and focused. Let the others rise or fall on their own? Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but also it won't work, will come across badly possibly if you seem to resist linking to other new ones you just started. I just now further revised it, dropping Tahnee Peppinger (my error, it was in old batch and not renominated) and dropping [[#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PageantUpdater/List of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA and Miss America titleholders who have appeared on reality television which was started January 22. That leaves the 8 renoms plus just 4 started January 31 by you. Yes you have been criticized for opening too many I guess, but 12 is not obviously bad; DGG suggested 5-10. Best to show these all together, I think, and for you not start any more. Okay? I am really only trying to help. --doncram 21:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And I really appreciate the help. This plan sounds very reasonable. I interpreted the Admin to mean we should put 5-10 in a batch AfD but I very much disagree with his reasoning. I'm not going to nom any more while the Deletion Review is going on. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, i think that's best to stop nomming for now, it would be too confusing, not look good. And now I see what you mean about the others being started by different editors (you mean the articles, not the AFDs). I further revised note to indicate that. What the note will link between is all the model AFDs started by you. Note indicates articles created by same editor, i guess FM-something, within 8 renoms. Will proceed copying that note now, okay? Or any more fine-tuning needed? --doncram 21:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, it looks like some will be kept, some deleted, some redirected maybe, out of the 12. I wonder if focusing on older articles, e.g. Barbi Losh out of the Miss Florida USA list-article, would help. That one looks like a case of one-manufactured-event notice, followed by nothing, later. Perhaps processing more in multi-afd batches of 5 say, with title of AFD being an old one like that, and also including new ones, would work better, I dunno, if you are going to proceed further. --doncram 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you have seen it by now...

... but there are different rules for USA-related subjects. With lower thresholds for notability. The Banner talk 00:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

where? Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole list of American misses you have AfD'ed. They always come up with some obscure excuse/policy/guideline for a keep vote. A non-USA miss just have to satisfy WP:GNG. I does not matter how sympathetic I am towards your AfD's, they sounded the alarm and the cavalry is running in. A kind of Pavlov-reflex. The Banner talk 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe that is going on. I came here to comment/ask, about cases like the Brittany Wiser AFD, where the the Google News search shows there is local or Montana state coverage of her participation in 2 or more annual pageants, what is the way to "vote". I honestly am not sure, if coverage in more than one beauty pageant and being covered in newpapers for that then adds up to significance enough for Wikipedia, or not? Anyhow, I am thinking the linking between AFDs is turning out to be helpful, so far. --doncram 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the normal WP:GNG rules get tossed when a university student wins a one day contest and gets mentioned in a local paper. The rules specifically cover a local person winning an award. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning

You are being disruptive by redirecting inappropriately articles that have established notability. Please stop your disruptive editing. Saying in an edit summary that an editor doesn't understand GNG is bordering on a WP:PA Cut that stuff out! Consider yourself warned! WordSeventeen (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking my edits. Stop claiming someone meets GNG when when there clearly is none. Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Landmark Worldwide". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 February 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kayla Mueller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prescott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might enjoy some of the content

here

enjoy.

GregKaye 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my name

Just to let you know, I've changed my name from John Smith the Gamer to Banak. Banak (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Landmark Worldwide, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Removal of copy edit tag

Hi, I was wondering if you could remove the copy edit tag from this article as I have fixed the lead. Lønginus (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

DocumentError

See User talk:DocumentError#Block changed to end on 14 June 2015 -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Curious about your view

in November you opposed a move of: Military of ISIL → Military of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant here

I also remember you suggesting creation of articles on an "ISIL in .." format.

You have more recently opposed in an RM including: Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Killing of captives by ISIL here.

Just curious. GregKaye 18:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Kayla Mueller

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ISIS Talk

Sorry, Legacypac, my comment was in response to Ritsaiph's, not yours! I've rectified it as you see. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mosul offensive (2015) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper & Trudeau

Would you PLEASE stop rushing. Harper is still prime minister until he actually resigns. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert your reversion or risk edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you being so STUBBORN & combative?. There's no need to put Trudeau in office, before he's actually in office. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Others are going to revert your premature change at Stephen Harper. If you wish to edit-war with them? then that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

in Wikipedia we usually insert known term end dates. It's common. That does not put Justin in office. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to force your preference into the infobox, that's your choice. We'll let other decide if it's premature. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

People keep editing in the obvious and you alone keep reverting every change. I compromised and added (expected) and you still took out the end date. I'm going to report you for edit warring next. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So this is how you get your own way? Threaten another with a report? So be it, we'll see what others will do about your premature edits. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored your version in the infobox. I'm asking your to withdraw you report. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've already restored your version. Please withdraw your report. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just not my version, it's at least the version of three other editors. You are the only one refusing to note the expected end date. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already restored the version you had inserted. Why aren't you complying with my request? GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've agreed not to revert your addition to the infobox, anymore. Now, would you please withdraw your report. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Carson

Hi, your edits at the Ben Carson article are appreciated, especially when you correct errors. However, this footnote that you inserted is not adequate: "<ref name=rtref1/>". As you can see, it is not properly showing up in the footnotes section. If you can fix, that would be appreciated, because everything must be properly sourced. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by deleting the stray ref. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi- can you unmerge the Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition article please?

It appears there was no consensus to merge and this article is currently in the middle of a DYK review. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The title is awful - zero Google hits for it - and the topic is covered better in other more extensive articles. Don't know what a DYK review is. I decided to be bold and do not plan to undo my efforts to improve coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we took care of it. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you know (DYK) refers to the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. Articles are nominated and then go through a review process similar to (though less stringent than) the process for articles reviewed for Good Article or Featured Article status. That's what LavaBaron was referring to. Please remember that when a bold edit is reverted, it is important to respect consensus thereafter. If you feel this article needs a better title, the solution is to propose an alternate title on the talk page, not eliminate the article entirely. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nudity of the thorax

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nudity of the thorax, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this isn't really a G1, nor an R3. A bulk solution to Neelix's redirects is being discussed at ANI, no need to handle them individually. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abu Osama al-Masri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eila

Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Progressive Conservative

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

One who brings food

Hi. Between Woohookitty and me, we've declined your speedy. A1 doesn't really apply to redirects, which don't have content to need context. Recent implausible redirects come under A3, but old ones (and don't ask me to define 'recent') are fodder for RfD. This one does lead to an article containing the term it's redirecting from, so I've put it back to square one. It is not very likely as a search term, but not impossible. Doesn't cost anything anyway... Peridon (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Part of a clean up of thousands of useless redirects. I've nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hi Legacypac, please post further deletion templates for Neelix on User talk:Neelix/deletions, rather than on his talk page. I hope that in moving them to a dedicated page he might feel less overwhelmed by the volume of them. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle puts them up, I've been moving them. He should feel overwhelmed because he created this problem, some of us are cleaning up. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You could uncheck the box about alerting the creator and do that part manually; for example, you could leave one note to let him know about several discussions, rather than posting a separate template each time. I understand your frustration, and I agree that he created the problem, but we don't know why (and speculating in public isn't fair). There just isn't any point in making him feel overwhelmed, and with multiple people commenting it must feel hurtful and worrying, so any way of minimizing that would be helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the thousands of redirects? I'm already doing to much manual work on this. I've been moving the notices to the special page in groups. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just happened to see this go by--Sarah, I'm considering going through and closing a whole bunch of them, the ones that have one vote or more and seem pretty straightforward keeps or deletes. The RfD page says they're listed "for a week or so"--I think I can take the "or so" and run with it. Only thing I can't easily do is file the paperwork to close the discussions. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of the ones I've seen listed should be speedied, but I see people are voting to keep some of them, e.g. Slutting. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of that pole dancer...

...this article by the same author was on the Front Page apparently. Way too many teenage boys around here. Kelly ^hi! 02:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Human study

I reverted your revert. No intention of an edit war, but I've added at the RfD discussion that I don't think there is consensus and suggested other targets (I had to do one before the other.) I didn't realise it would do so without giving me an opportunity to add an ec to say this, so sorry that probably appeared rather rude.

I agree we need to "move through these", but then why list it at RfD, just boldly change it if you felt that way, as indeed you have suggested to another, elsewhere. I think once it's at RfD you should let it run its course. I know theres a lot to get through, and thanks for helping. Si Trew (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Masses of Redirects

For reference https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html

Thanks, but I'm not an admin so can't delete them, and it would be onerous to mass list them. I'd like to tackle some of the French ones (the second biggest category) that an admin has done a tool for, I forget the link or the admin... Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html. I asked the creator/maintainer to put the links to the redirects rather than have them R to the targets, which is done, so that makes it easier. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better. See how I nominated redirects in blocks here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_10#Three_axis Picked one and constructed links to the rest. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix

Neelix appears to be on wiki break. For the sake of expediency you may dispense with leaving him multiple, templated deletion notices and such, at least until he returns. You might leave him one note asking to inform you when he returns. Thank you for your help cleaning up Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He always takes a wikibreak when he has trouble. The template are automatic and they make a very handy way to track what has been cleaned and what has not. They are all off on a subpage and now an archive of that. Thanks though. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense. Thank you again. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is useful to be able to keep track of what has been dealt with, and thanks for what you are doing, but please only move entries to the archive once they are no longer marked as under discussion, i.e. when they are no longer in a for discussion category, no longer have a template. I have now twice moved one back which has not been closed yet. --Mirokado (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

good catch, I meant to archive the declined speedy but hit the link to the RfD on the White Dog. The other was an item I withdrew I think. Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit

Hi. Am very reluctant to amend people's statements, but an element of the Neelix /Evidence included the implication of a RL offence. I know that was not in any way the intention, but have removed it for avoidance of doubt. Hopefully my substitute words convey your preferred meaning. Please feel free to further amend if there's other words that better reflect what you wanted to say. Also happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but Wikipedia is the real world and the target is a BLP. I'm not sure that writing a super detailed article about someone is an actual crime though - it is more in bad taste. If was her I would be either enthralled with the attention or scared for my safety (personally the later, but I'm not a plublicity hound). Perhaps we link - reworded accusation to words other editors have used (on the target's talk, ANi and even off wiki) and to specific edits that are very personal in nature. We could say 'reads like a creepy stalker shrine' or similar as well. An overlly detailed article on A book like [[Jesus for President] is just obsessive, but the same on BLP of a young female has vary different implications. Combined with his titty obsession...? Anyone's thoughts welcome? Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Its the suggestion that the editor is a "stalker" that is the issue. Personally, while I agree with you on oddity of the hyper-detailed nature of this and related articles, I find this less compelling than the evidence on redirects and WP:INVOLVED. Others in the Committee might disagree. Either way, please feel free to post or repost any evidence you like, but perhaps not phrases which could (wrongly) imply an allegation of RL unlawful conduct. And as above, I appreciate that any such implication is unintentional. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

i can't say if he is or is not a stalker, but he sure looks like one. Legacypac (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've recast this as a failure to follow BLP rules that an admin is supposed to be enforcing. Any other suggestions are welcome. Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Euryalus is saying, in the nicest way possible, to not say or imply an editor is a stalker (which you just repeated above). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I can say it more bluntly if you like. Publicly alleging that someone has committed a real life criminal offence is unwise, especially where that person is identifiable by their real name. It's also entirely unnecessary in the context of this case as you can make your point about the Tara Teng articles in other words. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Neelix

What are you doing with User talk:Neelix? I'm not sure it's appropriate for anyone to be going around and archiving and auto-archiving other people's pages, regardless of the situation. I've brought this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Talk_page_archiving given the number of eyeballs about Neelix. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You posted you don't know much about the situation... Various users have been manually shifting templates off his userpage. When you move a block of them, you have to scroll past a lot of stuff first and I got sick of that. I moved the rest of the deletion templates over to the deletion page, and archived a few unimportant things to his archives. Given the hundreds of hours going into mopping this up, we might as well make this as easy as possible. Anyway, its not archiving to the right page and I can't figure out why. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking at the extra archive box on his main user page, and I think it will be confusing: although /deletions 1 is listed correctly, the one-click archiver is designed to send archived items to a /something-space-number page whereas what we are using for unfinished items is /deletions and that is where things will need to be moved to first. I've tried various things on my own talk page, you can look at the recent history if you are curious. Thus obeying the principle of "no surprises in user interfaces" I will replace that extra archive box by an extension to your quick link message, along with an update to the existing talk section there. --Mirokado (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying - I feel less inept now. What about renaming the deletions page as 50 or something. Maybe it really wants a number. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you could:

• rename the active deletions page to /deletions 2 and use counter = 2 in the extra archive box
• rename the completed actions page to /completed 2 or whatever and update the deletions archive box accordingly

then the current /deletions and /deletions 1 would be redirects to /deletions 2 and /completed 2 respectively so existing links would continue to work. The one-click archiver would target the new pages quite happily. Better I think to avoid two sets of numbers with the same page name prefix

If you do that, I suggest you update Sarah's talk section to explain what you have done. That will hopefully prevent misunderstandings.

If you prefer, you can leave it until the weekend and I can do it, but it is past my bedtime, too late for me to do that now. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

improprieties

Thanks for the work you're doing cleaning up the Neelix mess. I have deleted a few of your CSD suggestions for removal of redirects. I initially deleted improprieties, but I thought about it and decided that's a valid term so I restored it. I'm not reporting this because your judgment was blatantly wrong, just that I think that whenever I fail to accept a CSD I like to let the proposer know, and in this case my judgment is that it is a plausible search term.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

FLAbolitionist block

If you read the block notice carefully you'll see it was primarily a username block, since the account had edited articles about an organization with a name similar to its own. Those always get softblocked per WP:GROUPNAME regardless of whether the edits would otherwise be considered constructive. The user always has the option to ask for a change of name and agree not to edit the article under most circumstances as a condition of unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not an Admin with immunity from the consequences of my actions and I can't see the whole block log. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be able to read the block log. It's in the notice I posted to their talk page: "This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, FLAbolitionist, does not meet our username policy ... Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) ... A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive" (Emphasis mine). Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

thank-you. That makes a lot more sense. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Salvation Army camps in Canada

• Sorry no. The 14 articles are WP:Parallel histories with each other. (Where is the article which you described as The Salvation Army Beaver Creek?) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

should be Beaver Creek Camp Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Legacypac: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Check your oneclickarchive script. You are firing archives to the wrong location. November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1 instead of the proper Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 1. I moved one and then you archived a second one, which I will now move. Safiel (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, just trying to clear the page up closed issues. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome, I moved tbe other incorrect sections and have nominated the bad page for speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You know how to fix the script on talk page? Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the One Click Archive script, but will look at it. Safiel (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm learning too. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know...

I adjusted and manually signed your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayanth Munigala because it was hidden inside a comment. By the way, thanks for the compliment. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

G8

Hi, nominating an article for CSD-G8 after a NAC of the AfD is not the proper way to handle it. Either let an admin close it or notify an admin personally to do the deleting. Jarkeld (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Should be G6, but G8 applies too on that. Apparently only Admins can close a delete though, so please go close it. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Improper close.

I reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASHI. Non-admins could not and should not close discussions as delete, even if there is a clear consensus for deletion (which is not even this case). See Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, and specifically its first section. Also, the AfD was relisted a few hours before your close, so it is inappropriate even for an administrator to close the discussion now without any additional comment/vote. My best, Cavarrone 10:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Time for me to go for Admin tools then. This Admins can do stuff I can't is getting old. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for self-reverting your other delete-closes, and good luck for your request for adminship. Bye, Cavarrone 11:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And I have reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassidey. This was not a discussion suitable for NAC, and "no decision" is generally not an appropriate NAC outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

apparently the relist was an issue. However, given what I see in the Neelix case Admins are no better then regular editors in good standing at showing common sense and making good decisions. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to reverse a closure like you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechestedness, it would be prudent for you to tell the admin who did all the background deletions. I'll re-close it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

I only reversed closures because I was told to and only the ones that were not deleted - I guess we crossed paths on that one. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions before you consider closing discussions again. NAC is not appropriate for delete discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Another one. Kindly self-revert Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting. I think the point has pretty well made that NACD doesn't extent to delete. It also isn't something for "Close calls and controversial decisions [which] are better left to an administrator." For the record, I'll say "this is controversial" and officially request you leave it to an admin. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted, missed that one. I've also started an RfC to change this policy. Neelix, and the weak response, has shown us all that admins don't have the market cornered on good judgement. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, make sure you do the closes correctly, from a technical perspective - I had to fix a couple that screwed up the log pages they were on. Specifically, make sure that {{Afd top}} goes above the heading, and that the one at the bottom is, of course, {{Afd bottom}}. Cheers, ansh666 12:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adventist University of Lukanga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to French

Edward Clemens Lord (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carlisle

Indianness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Muise

Hi. I'm confused. I'd be happy to see this AfD closed, but it doesn't quite look like it has been. You've placed a notice on the Talk page saying the AfD was closed as "delete" but the AfD discussion is not yet closed. Am I just catching you mid-stream? David in DC (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and close it. Long story. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you note

Thank you for your objectivity and high standards in closing articles at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you that means a lot. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unasked for advice

Hi, Legacypac,
First, thanks for all of your work with the Neelix redirects. A number of editors and admins helped out but you did a lot of the clean-up work after the initial rush of deletions occurred.
Secondly, you mentioned on ANI that you were interested in having an RfA at some point in the future. Beyond knowing policy well and being reliable and consistent, much of what an admin does involves communication with other editors and frequently trying to deescalate situations with editors that are often upset that they have been reverted or they have suffered a personal attack or had their article deleted. When they consider candidates for adminship, many voters look not only at editing experience but also at an individual's temperament and judgment. You can expect your admin decisions to be challenged, for both valid and invalid reasons. One has to be able to hear criticism, correct yourself if you made a mistake or explain to the other admin or editor your rationale for doing what you did.
At your ANI case, you seemed to dismiss the concerns that people had with your AFD closures as if they were a judgment about your decisions when I think what people were concerned about was that it was done contrary to policy and common practice. It sounds like you are making a proposal for the policy to change which is a great way to address this subject rather than making closures that are considered controversial.
Basically, if you want to become an admin, you need to know policies, have a general idea of how different areas of the project operate and an expertise in a few of them, and, most importantly, see if you have the trust of the community. Responding to criticism comes with the toolset and editors will want to see that you can handle it thoughtfully and dispassionately. Good luck and thanks again for your work on the redirect cleanup! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DRV notice

Looks like someone decided to take Leona Tuttle to DRV. It's at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 18. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Improper speedies

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Neelix-created redirects, yet again. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you so much for all of your work with the mother of all spam projects: the Neelix redirects. Too many people are criticizing instead of giving you the kudos you deserve. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

RfD closes

Hi there, I see you've started closing RfD discussions using the {{archive}} templates, but there is a set specifically for Rfd ({{rfd top}} and {{rfd bottom}}) which provide a standard format with a closure statement at the top, similar to Afd and other deletion forums. You should use those instead. The rfd top template takes one parameter as the closing statement. Also, if the closures result in redirects not being deleted, it's standard practice to put an {{old rfd}} tag on the redirect's talk page linking to the discussion, and remember to remove the rfd notice from the redirect. Full instructions are at WP:RFDAI, including a link to how to relist a discussion. I'll be happy to help if you need it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just working through that now. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:: You are still using the incorrect template for closing RFDs. Please follow the instructions at WP:RFDAI when you close discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfD closing

Hi Legacpac,

usually we subst {{rfd top}} and {{rfd bottom}} on closing RfDs, though I like the way you do it better. (To my mind, RfD templates are over-subst'd, there really is no need to clutter it all up with subst's. So someone changes the template, so what, they're not changing what's inside!) Just to let you know. Keep going old bean... you're doing a grand job (thought you were an admin anyway). Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Och, it looks like Ivanvector beat me to it. But the thanks still stand. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I win again! :P (and thanks to you both) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's also {{nac}} which is a convenient shorthand template for (non-admin closure). You don't have to use it, but it's there if you want to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reformatting discussion

I'm certain this was done in good faith, but please don't do things like that. More recent discussions go on top at RfD. Many times it doesn't matter, but editors will count on this, such as parsing related discussions or knowing when it's time to close. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

there were so many closed with a few open ones that would easily be missed (all in the same day so no timing issue) but it proved too difficult and I already decided not to try that anymore. Presumably its ok to resuffle a bit to group noms together when another one gets inserted in the middle though right? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

One entry there actually belonged on the next day. I bring up timing because occasionally in challenges, editors will look closely at time stamps to make sure a closure wasn't premature, though that's rare. Open discussions are generally hard to miss since closed ones get a colored background. You should really only reorder discussions if they're already out of order. If you're talking about batches, it's fine to combine nominations; the timestamp on the nomination statement will determine the entry's placement. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK violation

Please do not make direct links to disambiguation pages, as you did here - such links are always required to direct through the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect; doing otherwise causes them to appear as errors needing to be checked, and disrupts the work of disambiguators. If you have disrupted any other links in this way, please fix them before doing anything else in Wikipedia.

Note that in this case, an alternate solution would be to pipe the link to Acceptance (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

actually I believe your change [[18]] is the incorrect one. The target, while called a Dab in the title is not a Dab but a redirect, that was pointed at an incorrect location by Neelix. Two RfDs are trying untangle this mess. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand why intentional links to a disambig title that are not piped through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect are disruptive? bd2412 T 20:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No I have not encountered this before. I understand that sending readers through 3 layers of redirects and/dab makes it very hard to get to something useful. I also understand that sending readers from a word like Acceptable to Morality is not helpful, and that is what editors are trying to fix.Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

All links to disambiguation pages show up as errors, unless they are intentional links. Since a large number of editors are involved in finding and fixing those errors, it wastes a lot of editor time to have an error that can not be fixed, for which repairs will be attempted repeatedly. However, what is actually missing here is an article on the concept of "acceptability", to which "acceptable" should reasonably redirect; I have started Draft:Acceptability. bd2412 T 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Carlson Twins AFD

I have reversed your closure of this AFD. An AFD should not be closed until seven days (168 hours) have elapsed from its listing in the AFD log. In this case, the AFD was created in mid-October, but the inexperience editor who created it did not properly log it. The seven-day period did not begin to run until User:Finngall found and corrected the error three days ago, as noted in the AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you. Something was screwy because it had been started 36 days before. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Candy Carson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Candy Carson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Candy Carson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Hill and The View (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Would you still regard the Beersheva article as no consensus?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I responded on the article. I note that the more recent comments are all Keep - which supports the result of my close.Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments were over the line as a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson, you may be blocked from editing. I get that you are upset, however, it is not your right to strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You cited the policy that allows me to strike your personal attacks. Since you have now made the same attack on me three times, plus slapped me with templates threatening a block, I will now take you to ANi. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not cite policy that allows you to strike my comments (which were never meant as a personal attack). The policy clearly states: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.". Take me to AN/I for what? Making an attempt at humor, forgetting to put in a smiley so you would know it was meant to be humor, and telling you to stop violating policy? Precisely what have I done that is worthy of being taken to AN/I? That I didn't give you the kind of apology you wanted and demanded? I'm not going to apologize for something I never did, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you did not mean it as a joke. You did not head the clear warning on my talk page here [19] and you cited but failed to read WP:TPO which fully supports my refactoring, with clear comment right below, of your comments after I gave you fair opportunity to retract. Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly"? No, as I already stated, I did intend it that way. What's clear is that you refuse to accept my explanation. You are still in the wrong in regard to striking the comments of another editor, but whatever. I think you took the AfD personally to begin with and that's where things started to spin out of control. How about at this time we just call a mutual truce and let the AfD go as it will? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Your AfD is not personal for me - its policy - policy you don't understand. I AfD a fair number of articles and thousands of RdDs lately and I've seen FAR less notable bios kept. I do not accept your late brush away of accusing me of a serious COI as a joke. I asked you on your talk page to remove, but you have now restored the personal attack over and over. Take a deep breath and think about how you could lose your editing ability for continuing this pattern of behavior. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I ask if we could invoke a truce and you respond with a threat? <smdh> I think it's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastview Community Church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard this commentary at the associated AfD. Your comments are not only unnecessary in an AfD nomination but definitely a specifically directed personal attack. I suggest you remove your comments or strike them immediately - as well as all the other negative comments directed at that specific editor today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 25. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit. You need to stop the personal attacks immediately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See, correctly noting the origin of an article or redirect is part of a massive IAR cleanup is appropriate, as demonstrated by the way dozens of editors and admins are dealing with it.[20]. It is different then an unsubstantiated personal attack where you know, or can easily figure out, it is not true. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous or justified about these comments from you: "Neelix just dreamed these up." [21]; "Neelix's favorite play She Has a Name, and therefore graduated into being part of his walled garden of articles around sex trafficking." [22]. Neelix has already received enough from editors and admins over the incidents that resulted in him being desysopped. Continuing the browbeating is wrong and unnecessary. If you continue in the same vein, I will have no choice but to report you for continued personal attacks after being sufficiently warned. My suggestion remains: either delete or strike the comments, but definitely cease with the personal attacks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your templates and comments appear to be retaliatory - see above. If you want to become a Neelix apologist take it somewhere other than my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In no way are these warnings retaliatory. I noticed your inappropriate edits/comments while going through recent AfDs. I'm not an apologist for Neelix, didn't even comment at the goings-on related to him and am relatively certain I've never even crossed paths with him previously. Your accusations and suspicions are unfounded and unnecessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Addendum upon reflection: I think I may have commented that he should be de-sysopped. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RFD

It looks like you missed some parameters in the {{rfd2}} template at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_26. Jimp 01:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hey - take a look at WP:AFD/AI - it shows the correct way to close an AfD discussion (so I don't have to clean up after you any more). Cheers, "Pepper" @ 15:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And again. AfDs aren't closed with archive boxes. "Pepper" @ 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Press Freedom Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for your timely and outstanding work on a long series of articles about terrorist attacks, and, in particular, for your timely creation of an article on Inland Regional Center, the target of today's 2015 San Bernardino shooting

.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge request

Can you please merge my reporting into your report or merge your comments into mine? The auto reporting feature I used has more info and more evidence of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ya, I'm not sure how to best merge. I'm sure they will be considered together. You found more diffs, I had warned him and linked to discussion. Let the Admins that work 3RR do the report merge. Looks better that we both reported. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You apparently place far more trust in the competency of admins than I do. I documented six separate reverts of the term "Muslim" in my report, a clear violation. It would be best for you to close your report and merge all of the comments into my report. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Davis is now deliberately disrupting the talk page. I've warned him, but if he persists we need to file a request for arbitration enforcement for DS. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I warned him too. Happy to support you. Religion has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism and ISIL ! Spectacular fail! Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Some joker named "Mandruss" has now appointed himself the official defender of all things ParkH. Davis, after I called him out for making fun of dead people. Just where do these weird people come from and why does there seem to be so many of them? I recently moved the article to "2015 San Bernardino attacks" due to consensus for a move on the talk page, and I was instantly reverted by another joker named "WWGB" who bizarrely told me to find consensus! Meanwhile, every RS has changed the narrative in the last 12 hours from shootings to attacks, but these jokers don't seem to be able to read, let alone understand basic English. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I just took WWBG to the edit warring page for 2RRing the 1RR warning template. Yes you read that right. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Just because you're awesome! —МандичкаYO 😜 16:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_4#Mass_kilings_in_China

Just a heads up. I just fixed the closure of this RfD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've also fixed Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_4#First_Class_Award. You can use this process to close future Rfd's instead --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have to use different coding for RfD closings, or else it makes all of the entries on that date uneditable separately. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you. I mistyped, then phone battery died! Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: notification of edit warring case

Heh, well, at least you are pretty bad at filing a WP:3RR report. :) But I am done with this matter; I'd much rather be writing an encyclopedia than arguing about this silliness. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I filed and forgot. No hard feelings. Legacypac (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing. I once got a 24hrs 3RR block on an article because the editor with whom I was trying, in good faith, to negotiate a compromise edit with realized that three of my edits that day shared, not a single word, but merely a single comma. That experience has left a bad taste in my mouth which persists. I don't want to see admins abusing the 1RR sanctions in the same way. But I shall hope for the best. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm not sure why you redirected Claira Hollingsworth and Ashleigh Lollie? These pages hadn't been nominated for deletion. Was there some consensus to add these redirects? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lollie has be nominated for deletion before with lots of people supporting delete, but not under WP:NOPAGE which clearly applies here. Last time it was no consensus. You restored without answering the stated reason for redirecting it. I've AfD'd it so go make your case if you feel strongly about it. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Slow down friend. I politely asked you a question, why did you redirect these pages? Were you trying to subvert the process in the hope no one would catch you, or was it just careless mistake? No need to respond, I see you've corrected your error. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No error on my part and nothing to hide. We are advised to take such steps instead of taking everything to AfD. AfD process would break if every non-notable topic went there. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT for "a problematic article", but the Ashleigh Lollie article successfully made it through AfD three times (and you were the nominator for two of them). How has this article--which you were unable to successfully have deleted--suddenly become "problematic"?

You are mistaken. The first bulk AfD was closed on a technicality because people objected to lumping together so many similar articles. Some of the articles were then taken to AfD as test cases and most were deleted or redirected. Lollie was taken to AfD and went no consensus evidently because of a poor explanation of why it should be deleted. At that time I was unaware of WP:NOPAGE. The third nomination is only after you just restored the article.

Also, WP:ATD-R states that "sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect". This certainly doesn't apply.

Response: That is only your opinion, one that goes against GNG and NOPAGE. I don't see how that does not apply, unless you object to even a redirect?

You wrote that "we are advised to take such steps instead of taking everything to AfD". Which policy or consensus states this?

Response: See the instructions for AfDs. Very clear.

I see also that you were unsuccessful here at deleting Claira Hollingsworth, so today you added a redirect. Problem solved.

Response: A technical decline of a speedy request is hardly a definitive keep. Don't misrepresent things.

Finally, an administrator, User:DGG, specifically stated at your attempt to bulk-delete all these articles here, that you should "renominate separately". I didn't see anything about redirecting them so you could avoid complying with this. Please explain yourself. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Response: That is only one non-binding comment among MANY on many similar articles of how one way to deal with various pageant winner bios. If you can demonstrate notability in compliance with WP:BIO and then pass WP:NOPAGE these article may be able to stay, but otherwise all the college student, hairdressers, stay at home mommies etc who happened to be in a contest of looks at some point in the past can be presented on lists. If they go one to become notable (model, actress, in business etc) they get stand alone pages. I hope this clears things up for you so you can work toward a more credible encyclopedia. (I provided inline responses to your other points). Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is very clear on this: WP:BEFORE states: "if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article." At Ashleigh Lollie, you redirected an article which was certainly deemed important; it had been through AfD and was not deleted. As for the rest of the articles you redirected, you had been instructed to submit them for AfD, yet you chose to redirect them instead. It certainly appears as if you have attempted to subvert the process. Is there something I am missing here? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did not read or understand my explanation above. If you think you have a case, take it to AfD. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant ANI. That's the reason I asked you first if I missed something here. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What does ANI have todo with anything here? You restored the article I redirected. I disagree so They are off to AfD where they should be deleted soon. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your redirects of perfectly good articles appears an attempt to game the system by subverting the deletion process. As an act of good faith I'd suggest you revert each of the redirects you added. How you deal with them after that is not my concern. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've not redirected any perfectly good articles. Susie Q won Miss State in 2010 is best presented on a list. Generally any other detail supplied about er high school or college choice is trivia. These girls mostly fade back into obscurity after a [WP:15MOF]]. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fabien Clain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bataclan

Farhat Hashmi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to International Islamic University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's More Fun to Compute

I've looked everywhere and I can't find the RFA page for It's More Fun to Compute. Wait, what? He's not an admin? Well, he should be! Oh, you just watch the festivities now. "Blocked due to behavioral match with sock puppet xyz." Yeah, that's the ticket. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I'm way late to the party. Apparently the user was blocked as a suspected sock puppet due to behavior before I even wrote that. Meanwhile, Neelix is still an admin and unblocked. I love this place! Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to do it...

...I think that after those already under discussion are closed, you might nominate the remaining Europe lists in a single nomination so we can have one discussion. Then the South American ones, then... They're all listed here. EEng (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Poland and Japan are test cases :) Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

archiving active discussions

Please note that discussions should be archived only after weeks have passed without new contributions. Also, read WP:TALKCOND. If you continue archiving active discussions I may take it to WP:AN. Thanks. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is not a place for general discussion about fringe theories, it is a place for discussing specific improvements to the article. We also have a moratorium on discussing renaming the article. There is no rule about discussions beong inactive for weeks, and on active pages archiving commonly happens daily. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You are speaking nonsense. Just throwing around words that have no meaning for the issue in question. You can respect other editors' discussion and let them be, or try to impose your arbitrary archiving preventing us to discuss. One option is polite and considerate, other is aggressive and inconsiderate. The other will result in WP:AN debate which will unfortunately require more time of everyone involved, as well as more editors involved. You can have it simple way or complicated way.

WP:ARCHIVE For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact.

178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pageants

You are correct. There is a considerable amount of meaningless unreferenced content in some of these (not just the Miss Earth) articles. Moreover, much of this material can never due to its nature be definitively referenced. I don't think it's going to help us by trying to formalize what content is irrelevant, so I am just going to trim the most silly parts of these articles on the plainspoken basis that they are indeed fancruft, particularly sections that just cannot ever be "complete" in an encyclopedic way. I will step back from the AfD process itself. I don't have a strong opinion because I understand the point you are making but I am not sure that deletion is the best way forward.FeatherPluma (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw some of your edits and you are spot on. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac: Thank you. I trimmed several articles in the category. The largest redaction was Miss World 2012. Maybe I am coming around to the notion that ALL these articles are in fact deletion material. As an alternative, I proffer the idea of cleaning them up, giving them an e.g. B grade rating (to countermand the notion that every last bit of rubbish is needed to get a reasonable rating), and adding an advisory against adding trivia and original research. I don't know which way would ultimately be better. Anyway, I am off the grid for 10 days starting tomorrow so I won't have a way to see what response my edits engender or to guage the appropriateness of further edits. Wishing you good luck. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)