Open main menu

User talk:Legacypac

Draft:Katharina_Boll-DornbergerEdit

Dear ::Legacypac, I have continued working on the draft of the crystallographer Boll-Dornberger. I think it should be clearer now that she is notable. Reference [1] is an article published in the magazine of the German Crystallographic Society covering the life of Boll-Dornberger. References [8],[10] are newspaper articles from the German Democratic Republic proving that Boll-Dornberger won two national prizes of the GDR for her research. Unfortunately, they can only be accessed if you are a member of a research organization at the moment. This should, however, meet criterion 2 of WP:NACADEMIC. These prizes are also mentioned in ref 3. Unfortunately, reference 3 is behind a pay wall - however, I had access to the article. I have include another reference now that can be accessed via google book search [9]: https://books.google.be/books?id=C5JdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=dorothy+hodgkin+dornberger&source=bl&ots=-JhF61fFeQ&sig=L3HAnut8obvNhOinIzSZe3nUquE&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZl9KaxJvfAhWQmbQKHTV4A3wQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=dorothy%20hodgkin%20dornberger&f=false .In German, these prizes are called "Väterländischer Verdienstorden" und "Nationalpreis der DDR". Moreover, all sources showing the notability are provided in German because of the special circumstances regarding the GDR. I would be very happy if you could reevaluate the article and tell me what I can do to meet the criteria of notability. I think it is more a matter of providing access to the sources than an actual problem with notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidStateHeini (talkcontribs) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Christmas Tree (1991)Edit

Legacypac, hey, can you take a look at this one, please? It was created in WP:Draftspace, but was unilaterally moved from Draftspace to WP:Mainspace by its author soon after, and it doesn't look to me like it's ready. Also, it looks like to me that doing what the author did circumvents the Page Curation process, as I don't see a "Mark this page as patrolled" or a patrol log entry... Anyway, it looks to me like this article is not ready for Mainspace yet, so I'd like to see what you think. Thanks! --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

HeyEdit

I returned Draft:Telebasel back to Draft, since it does need to be worked on. One sentenced article without any reference is just not what Wikipedia needs imo. It seems like a notable topic, but WP:TNT exists for a reason. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, notable per WP:BROADCAST as a 25 year old tv stn. No one will work on it in Draft where it has rotted for a long time. Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, I am refering back to WP:TNT. At this state it is better to start the thing over, instead of hoping someone may expand the article, when its more unlikely that it will not. To add, lots of notable topic drafts were deleted by G13, because they were not in a good state for mainspace. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The key facts and a nice info box is there. Why TNT it? It would clearly survive an AfD which is the main question at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
From WP:BROADCAST standpoint Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, or originating some of its own programming. I see none of that here, the fact it was important for the market, original shows, or reliable sources. So based on that, this is deletable even on AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to try an AfD or MfD but I'm putting it back in mainspace because the creator is long gone and it should not live in never never forever Draftland. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: please don't put this back in mainspace without a reference. See the reviewing instructions, which state:

If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason.

Moving this back to draftspace was the correct decision. Bradv🍁 01:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No it is not the right decision. Page would easily pass AfD. Don't like it - take it there. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I find it surprising that one of AfC's most prolific reviewers has such disregard for the AfC process. Bradv🍁 01:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You are ignoring the AfC review guidelines PLUS WP:BROADCAST though. I will not discuss this further, if you want it back to mainspace, do it. Not even an AfD will come from me unless @bradv wants to. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Promising drafts" accepted without any improvementEdit

Here's another example, similar to above. This was a promising draft article which you promoted to mainspace without any improvement, and move warred over it when Onel5969 put it back in draftspace. The subject might be notable, but the article needs improvement before it can be accepted (that's why it was a {{promising draft}}). In this case, the article is a copyvio, and has been tagged as such by Barkeep49.

When are you going to acknowledge that there's more to the AFC reviewing process than simply checking for notability? Bradv🍁 16:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

For anyone else who might be reading this the general point I would make is, if you (Legacypacy) want to go for speed with AfC given the backlog, well I can understand that desire. But if that's your goal I would suggest that if a respected editor moves an article back to draftspace you either respect that or if you want to move it back you spend the time to properly clean-up an article. I expressed my thinking about that article in more detail here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with Barkeep49. Going for speed by sacrificing quality is not acceptable regardless of the backlog. Stop accepting terrible articles. Natureium (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Subject clearly passes WP:PROF. There was no copyvio - I reviewed that. There were some hard to rewrite phrases which is common with academics. The page was a little glowing but not a big deal amd not G11 worthy. It is pretty common for new writers to use language that tried to make their subject seem more important. There are a handful of active AfC editors and of those even fewer willing to tackle the harder cases and backlogs like the "promising draft" list which are pages where the creator is usually gone but which some established editor thinks should not be deleted. In contrast there are thousands of gnomes who polish pages in mainspace over time. There is no deadline on fixing some overly positive language. If I fixed everything someone else might not like on every page I reviewed the AfF backlog would continue to grow unchecked. Read WP:SOFIXIT Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The promising draft template is literally for drafts that need improvement before promoting to mainspace. Failure to follow the reviewing instructions, particularly regarding copyright violations, is a very serious problem. I really wish you would acknowledge that. Bradv🍁 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I follow the reviewing instructions generally, but a number of respected editors find some of the reviewing instructions to be too extensive and unhelpful. AfC is not about creating perfect pages, it is about screening out the bad and promoting the promising. Very few articles created directly in mainspace are much good either before they are collaboratively edited. Bradv you work in reviewing and improving new pages, I work a little earlier in the process. How about you do your thing and let me do mine instead of trying to get me to do what you do. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that. We operate by consensus on how to function as AfC reviewers, and that consensus is expressed at WP:AFCR. If you disagree that those instructions have consensus, come up with a proposal to change them, don't just fight with other AfC and NPP reviewers. I agree we don't all need to work exactly the same, but "do your thing and let me do mine" doesn't really fit with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, especially when what you want to do is disruptive or violates policy. Bradv🍁 17:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
My concern Legacy is that you don't really do your thing and let others do theirs at least when it comes to NPP reviewing of the drafts, otherwise you'd not have undone Onel's moves. And while I certainly agree that some of the writing at Giovanni Parmigiani was techinical enough that it couldn't be changed (largely what came up as COPYVIO from here I think there were other ways of writing the other pieces I deleted (and which have now been flagged for further investigation by a sysop). But even setting that aside and leaving in the copied text I removed (and really we both take copyright seriously enough to know whether or not it was a COPYVIO matters) basically no biographical information was sourced. While perhaps not a brightline violation of BLP related policies it does, in my mind, cause concern because of those policies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Civil applies to youEdit

If you keep making personal attacks this will end up at ANI. Remember you were already blocked for these attacks. Springee (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. If you keep posting things that are demonstrably untrue/misleading/total BS you will find your ability to edit gun topics restricted. You waste everyone else's time arguing against things you post that are not correct. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to express your disagreement according to the rules of WP:CIVIL. Springee (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season templateEdit

The Template needs to turn from red to blue and needs to change now but we have a 2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season article real soon. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It does no harm to have the template waiting for use when the articles are ready. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

But When Will we Have the 2019 NCAA Division I FBS football article hopefully before Christmas. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

We will have the article as soon as someone (not me) writes it. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock (supercentenarian)Edit

PROD was declined here, in case you didn't see already. Still don't think that passes GNG, personally. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Draft:AI peer review and your "requesting a copyvio patroler take a closer look."Edit

Yes, some of the reference content is quoted in condensed form. So that it seems reasonable now that you would request a copyvio patroler review. -AI? Anyway, I noticed there's a 1 week time limit to have changes made. However, the article has gone somewhere I do not see how to edit changes. What happens next, should I wait for the patroler, or can I make edits somehow now? Thanks. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Page is at Draft:AI Peer Review but has been blanked while the copyright status is reviewed. You can get the text from the history and rework it in your own words. That will resolve the issue. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Er, not exactly, Legacypac, as that would simply create a derivative work and would not solve the problem; copyright violations need to be removed, not copy-edited. What Gravitoelectrotensor is welcome to do is to work on a new version of the page here. Gravitoelectrotensor, you can copy over the structural elements of the draft (infobox, references, categories etc), but should take great care not to copy any text that was previously copied from outside Wikipedia. Text can be freely copied from other Wikipedia articles, but needs attribution – which is most easily done in your edit summary (e.g., "add some stuff copied from Peer review", see that page for attribution"). Please ask if any part of this is not clear! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
OK thanks Justlettersandnumbers (talk) before reading your reply here I revised the earlier version before Legacypac (talk) -- and removed the SPEEDY DELETION thing, per guidelines -- what's up with marking for Speedy Deletion? So I guess I'll copy over the article stuff to the new page. Generally, I believe when writing an encyclopedia article on a technical subject one should list the same technical terms and phrases that the source content uses. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, Gravitoelectrotensor, that template carries, in large clear letters, the message: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent". I've reverted those two edits. I suggest that any further discussion should take place at Draft talk:AI Peer Review; that's also the place to mention when you have completed any rewrite you want to undertake. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright Justlettersandnumbers (talk) I should have wrote I copied over and made the copyright compliance edits to the Temp link. Also posted that on Draft talk:AI Peer Review. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018Edit

Hello Legacypac,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Manfred YuenEdit

Dear ::Legacypac, Thank you for your review and comment. I have resubmitted the draft of the Hong Kong social architect Manfred Yuen Manfred Yuen. The article has been polished according to your comment. Thank you. The Wikipedia of Yuen is classified as a Hong Kong architect contributing his work to improve the society. A Hong Kong Chinese Wikipedia version has been prepared. Since both English and Chinese are the official languages in Hong Kong, both language versions are prepared for readers. Here in the English version mostly English references are provided, there are more Chinese media presses reporting Yuen's works and contribution. Yuen has certain search result hits in google so it seems suitable to have a Wikipedia page for him. There aren't many Hong Kong architect were archived on Wikipedia, we try to contribute more in this category. ::Tobuildncontribute~~ —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Legacypac".