Open main menu

Draft submission helpEdit

Hello! I'm writing to you because you recently helped me improve the article about Molecular Layer Deposition [1] for submission. I have already made the changes you suggested, but now I see that the box with the button to submit the draft is gone. What should I do now? Is it alreaddy submitted?


  1. ^ "Draft:Molecular Layer Deposition", Wikipedia, 2019-02-18, retrieved 2019-02-18

Closing of WP:AN discussionEdit

Legacypac, please see my close here: [1]. It was a complicated discussion with little consensus about any course of action, but I've done my best to summarize as follows:

  • Legacypac's indef block remains in effect. No admin should unblock based just on the comments Legacypac has made in their defense so far, as there is consensus that it isn't sufficient. There is no community ban. Legacypac can choose to make another unblock request on their talk page at any time, which can be reviewed by any uninvolved admin. Both Legacypac and the uninvolved admin should review the concerns expressed in this thread. Some possible ideas for further unblock conditions for Legacypac and the uninvolved admin to consider are listed in the #Unblock conditions section. Reading between the lines of most of the comments, there does seem to be an overall consensus that a fundamental change in Legacypac's approach is in order if a community ban is to be avoided. A more in-depth rationale for this close can be seen in the last sub-section.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, on a slightly-related note: While this may not be your most important issue right now, when the dust settles on all this, I'd be happy to add a 1 second block to your block log, clarifying that you never made a legal threat, and that particular block was administrator error; the block log should have made this clearer. Some people want notes like this added, some people don't, so it's up to you. I won't do anything unless/until you're unblocked, however. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I endorse the proposed 1-second "log message" block to explicitly clarify my error. I'll offer to do it myself if you or Floquenbeam prefer, if I haven't been desysopped by then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
If both Ivanvector and Floquenbeam have been de-moppified, I got ya. SQLQuery me! 04:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:X3 listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:X3. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:X3 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affairEdit

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you there and do you care?Edit

There's a lot of talk at the case request about the status of your block as it goes forward, which now seems to be happening. I thought maybe it might uncomplicate matters if you indicated whether you are even watching WP right now and if you care to participate in the case at all. (be aware that while your participation is by no means mandatory, not participating does not prevent the possibility of further sanctions if the committee deems that to be an appropriate course of action) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

... while your participation is by no means mandatory, not participating does not prevent the possibility of further sanctions ... which kind of makes participation mandatory, doesn't it? Levivich 22:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really. If LP has done nothing wrong regarding the SNC-L dispute then there wont be any further sanctions. If they have done something wrong but the Committee believe the current sanctions are sufficient to deal with their behaviour there then there wont be any further sanctions. If they have done something wrong and the committee believe that small changes to their existing sanctions will be sufficient then there will only be those small changes (whether that would be further sanctions can be argued either way (and it's an argument I'm not interested in having). If people are accusing LP of doing bad things (as they've been named as a party I presume so, but I haven't been following the dispute at all and haven't read the request in any sort of detail) then they may wish to rebut the allegations and/or offer a different interpretation of events, or they may wish to let their actions speak for themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
ich, we are all volunteers here, nothing is mandatory at all, not even WP:ADMINACCT (although it may entrain sanctions or loss of admin rights). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just like if the police come to your house to arrest you, you don't have to go with them. Look at Thryd's comment here: if Lpac has done no wrong, then there won't be any further sanctions. I'm sure Lpac finds that super reassuring, from an admin who has accused Lpac of a whole lot of wrongdoing over a long period of time. The point is: is anything that CT is accusing Lpac of worse than Lpac's treatment of BHG? If not, then what the F is the point of unblocking him to participate in a misdemeanor case when he's already blocked for a felony? I don't think Lpac is blameless here, but there is a segment of this community that has a real problem with leaving people alone when they ought to be left alone. – Levivich 02:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
My accusation is that he's been POV-editing a contentious politics article and bullied an editor off the page. Some might interpret that as "worse than Lpac's treatment of BHG". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about everything. The problematic behavior stopped many weeks ago and will not continue while he's blocked. What is the point of taking up the time of other editors to examine Lpac's conduct? Sanctions are supposed to be preventative: what will they prevent? If/when Lpac is unblocked, if he resumes this problematic behavior, it can be examined then. If Lpac doesn't resume the behavior, then there will be no problem. Putting aside issues of "right" and "wrong", I see no practical benefit from using up resources to include Lpac as a party when he's already indef blocked. I don't know if it's up to you anymore, but consider this me lobbying you to remove him as a party for the sake of saving time for everybody else. – Levivich 02:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Whatever LP is or is not guilty of, I think it's time to leave his talk page alone and put an end to the grave dancing. It's entirely up to him if he wishes to comment. He know the rules more than most people.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Levivich—if the charges were against Legacypac alone, I'd agree—there'd no longer be a dispute to be settled. But as I stated at the case page, there's no way I could have left him off the list and not be attacked for leaving him off in bad faith—there are already such accusations about having left others off it who had far, far less to do with the dispute. If he gets removed, I won't oppose it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Legacypac,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Legacypac".