User talk:Legacypac/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Davidians

Good morning! I agree that the project is not a "High" priority Christianity article, the sect is WAY too small. However, I think it does belong in WikiProject SDA, as it is a direct offshoot, and a dispassionate, academic discussion of SDAs would probably mention the subject. Your thoughts? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm well the direct offshoot is disbanded since the early 1960's and for all the noise they made the actual membership at the peak was a few thousand ... smaller than some university church congregations. What makes them different than say Talk:True and Free Seventh-day Adventists which is similarly marked high importance and in SDA project is that they keep claiming to be part of the SDA church after disfellowshiping. I can't recall ever editing the wikiproject/importance of any page before. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Drama over

I have just made this edit. I am assuming good faith and some sanity, because I assume that you will not be tempted to refactor any edit made by DocumentError other than in article name-space. My advise to you is: if ever you think that DocumentError is in breach of the one way IBAN, or DocumentError is in breach of a policy or guideline, that you either contact an administrator asking them to resolve it, or you go to ANI. My advise on that is the same as I gave DocumentError, an ANI could boomerang against you, so be sure that of your ground before starting one. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I did not see his comments which - by urging reopening of a thread so I can be potentially sanctioned and suggesting I will change his votes from support to oppose (or reverse) on an RfC - already breach his newly minted IBAN. The farther away he stays the betterer life will be. I'm sure not going to be watching what he does generally, but if he comes after me again I know what to do. Legacypac (talk)

List of Confederate Monuments

Hey there. I left this message for an editor who seems to have performed a mass delete of a number of valid monuments. I have only glanced at the delete, but it certainly seems to have erased the hard work of a lot of editors. Hopefully this editor will restore the content which was likely removed in error. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

MfD closes

Hey I appreciate you taking the time to NAC MfDs that have been speedied etc, but could you use {{mfdtop}} and {{mfdbottom}} so the bot can pick them up and archive them correctly? It seems to ignore things that have been closed with {{archivetop}}. If you use scripts at all, I find User:Evad37/XFDcloser super handy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had that but it stopped working. Thanks for the link. I'll try setting it up again. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I've had some weird shit going on with my scripts as well so it might not just be you. Anyway, cheers :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Carl Paul Pfleiderer

Hi Legacypac, don't know if this is yours, but could you resubmit it tommorrow, and I will pass it. Once it is out, ill copyedit it, as some more refs and get auth tag in. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Colors

Hi Wikipedian, Can you please help me in merging the Draft:Colors Kannada to article Colors Kannada? I provide reliable sources on that draft. Thank you.106.203.14.45 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

the draft has been deleted. Maybe a talk page stalking Admin can assess and restore. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Might be worth reading the related AFD about that. The draft had all of one reference and doesn't look much better than the article version. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

thank-you. IP I suggest improving the redirect target in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Why

When you submit stale drafts for review, it only prevents them from getting G13'd. I still see no logical reason for you to do this. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Depend on the type of draft. That one is a school that is missing on the template at the bottom. High schools tend to pass GNG. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't explain your behavior of submitting stale drafts. Is this inclusionism? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Arguably that draft should be promoted, or fixed and promoted. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for your rationale, because I'm trying to understand. I know you're a good faith contributor but I don't see why you do this stuff. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing my blooper last night. I was obviously working a little too much at a time, just as I tell other people not to do. . DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of...

...Black Jungle Conservation Reserve, thank you for rescuing that, so many just blindly nom for deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

I am reminded of your words: I believe that even relatively crappy pages on Notable topics with at least some referencing (WP:V) belong in mainspace not stuck in NPP or AfC (where they may be deleted as stale) or user or non-AfC Draft. (...) Let the many fix those malformed refs or poorly worded paragraphs. Why are we insisting everything be perfect before we release the page to the wild? It perfectly highlights why the format of referencing is of lesser import than the requirement for notability which must of course be asserted, and hence why we need better checks and balances at AfC.

The time isn't ripe for it yet, but sooner or later, perhaps when the ACTRIAL has produced its stats, it will be time to take a more concentrated look at the possibility of merging NPP and AfC, a principle that is also shared by DrStrauss. Both systems still have significant backlogs which are not being reduced quickly enough, and its not my intention to discourage anyone from doing plenty of reviews. As you are committed to some of these issues, particularly your work with sorting out drafts, you might like to start a new thread at WT:NPPAFC - more to keep the pot on the boil, but I would appreciate your thoughts there. I, for one, would like to see more possibilities for deleting totally unsuitable drafts rather than having to wait for G13, or a G5 decision at COIN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)`

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Change in your commentary

I changed some of your wording that had been on the WikiProject Articles for creation talk page that had been there for a few months. It was causing the talk page to show up in the list of pages that were eligible for G13. If this was undesired, please feel free to revert without notice. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

About the suite of supercentenarian articles

Hello,

I was really inspired by your arguments on various talk pages and old AfD debates about the need to clean up the suite of supercentenarian articles, along with my own experiences editing, which is why I brought the country articles in line with the U.S. with having a more notable minimum age. You seem like an experienced editor with a passion in the subject, so do you think we could work together to start a movement to further improve the suite of supercentenarian articles? My perspective is there have been thousands and thousands of supercentenarians (so being one clearly does not make one notable) and there are only going to be more and more of them in the future. Most of the articles either have or are building sections of 100 oldest supercentenarians and the vast majority of these people are not actually notable. In time, all the countries with articles will fill up and more country articles will be added as more people become supercentenarians. There are already far more people on these lists then encyclopedically useful and it will only get worse with time. Imagine if Wikipedia existed when life expectancies were lower and just being a centenarian was as notable as being a supercentenarian today. There would need to be an article for nearly every country on earth and there would be roughly at least 20,000 people on these lists. Some countries with longer life expectancies and larger populations would have a list of markedly older people then most other countries as well. That is where we are slowly headed today with the suite of supercentenarian articles because there is a minimum age (110), but an open ended max age to human longevity. How is a 110 year-old that lived in Sweden any where near as notable as the 117 year-old currently living in Japan? They clearly are not because the suite of supercentenarian articles is set up poorly. (They only pretty much serve as free hosting for the GRG, which I am sure you know itself ruled those articles in a way years ago, and longevity fans who see longevity as a competition, which it is not).

I propose setting a minimum age of 113 for supercentenarians to be present on individual country and continent pages (as presently the vast majority of supercentenarians die before that age) and a max of 50 entries per page. This would not only go a long way to solving the problem of hordes of non-notable people being on these lists, it alleviates the growing crises of a huge age disparity between countries with longer lifespans and larger populations and those which don't. For example, there are many hundreds of U.S. and Japanese (probably at least 1,000) supercentenarians older (which means more notable) then many people recorded on country lists like Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, etc. whom are not recorded because there have been so many supercentenarians from the U.S. and Japan. Many country articles like Sweden should be deleted and the focus should be on the continent level and lists of oldest people ever/women/men. It also solves a problem you noted many times, which is that editing this large suite of repetitive articles is a huge pain and leads to errors/disparities. These changes also help solve the serious if little noticed problem of Wikipedia serving as a free web host for the GRG's data. There is also already a page for oldest people ever and living by country, so that actually notable detail isn't lost when an article like Swedish supercentenarians is deleted. I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic and if you are interested in taking up your sword again in fighting to clean up the mess that is the suite of supercentenarian articles. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. There are several other level headed editors with similar ideas. I also believe separating out trivial detail like supercenturians that emigrated from Italy is pretty silly. Why should a 111 year old women be listed just because because decades ago she moved from Italy to France. The less notable the person and the less unusual their age the less actual verified data we have and up goes the possibility for error. Also I hate the “X oldest person ever in Y” claims. Everyone agrees the world is at least 6000 years old and it is pretty crazy to claim someone is the 10th oldest person ever out of everyone who lived because we are obviously missing a lot f data on a lot of people. I’m not even convinced we are correctly identifying all the currnt 100 oldest people. China, all of Africa, and India resident people must have a whole bunch of really old people but very few show up on our lists - to accept the lack of superold Chinese, Africans and Indians on the lists suggests they are genetically inferior, which I find far less likely then that there is poor data collection and reporting systems in large parts of the workd and that the olderster fans evidently can’t read the data that is generated in the relevent languages so miss the people who must be out there, dead or alive. Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your sentiment about the likely inaccuracies of the WOP list and the other lists for the reasons you listed, except I personally think record keeping in Africa, India, and China (not to mention quality of life to this day) was too poor 110+ years ago to trust for scientific purposes. I have often thought about the fact that in the supercentenarian business, actually living 110+ years means nothing unless there are documents to "prove" it, a desire to share those documents/ expose private life to the public, someone willing to declare them valid proof of age, and record when you die. You don't actually need any of that to be a supercentenarian or oldest whatever, but without those checks any tracking system would be clogged with the large number of liars who claim to be older then they are. For now, unfortunately, we are dependent on pretty much just GRG and the GWR for anyone 113+, which is around where true notability really begins, and a large part of the world is a data black hole. I think the issue with including emigrant supercentenarians mostly goes away if the min age is bumped to 113, as that eliminates most. Outright ending that practice would also be an important component of simplifying the upkeep of articles. Did you know the current oldest German man was in six different article lists until I cut him out of the Polish emigrant list today? I am the one who updated all those with a source for his 112 birthday and many showing his 111th birthday; it was so redundant and a pain to do. I even actually added him to the Polish emigrant list recently because he was supposed to be on it, but no one even realized it or cared to fix it. It's the perfect example of what happens all over these sprawling and often poorly maintained lists. On another note, I definitely agree that the younger and less known a person (as in most people on these lists :), the more likely their claim is not accurate or there are people we are unaware of who were/are older. Even GRG admits to amending their WOP and WOM lists many times if you look at their tables.

If we did make an effort to push for a min age of 113 and or similar changes we are talking about, I think we should try to "go big" because it would be a lot easier to solve as many problems now versus partially solve them (say min age 111) and try to properly fix them later when the problem is less urgent thanks to us. Where do you think we should begin and can you contact the other editors so they can be part of the effort when it comes? We have very strong arguments dramatic change is needed on these articles and I don't believe anyone can beat us in a fair, honest discussion. To be clear, I'm completely open to other levelheaded editors' ideas for how to improve these articles. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It just came to me that GRG has basically stopped verifying (or at least publicly releasing that information) supercentenarians under 112, so that is further proof that younger supercentenarians are not notable enough to include on these lists anymore. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see ANI

I reclosed the threads by user 178, this is the result: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis_.2F_.CE.BC.CE.B7.CE.B4.CE.B5.CE.AF.CF.82_violating_WP:TPOC_again μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reclosing them. This is out of control. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk

Attempting to single-handedly reform and impose order on the reference desks would be inappropriate at any time, but it is doubly so while the village pump policy debate on the desks' future is still in progress. ApLundell (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So closing several threads that are inappropriate and against policy is wrong? Hardly an attempt to single handily reform the RefDesk. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for Arbitration, because I think, first, that the village pump debate is probably lost, and, second, that something beyond more of the same is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested an Admin be added https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett#RefDesk Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hat v Archive

The reason why we hat rather than archive is that the questions or comments are considered somehow illegitimate per se. Archiving is done when a legitimate discussion is over at a talk page or at the ITN nomination desk, when there is no illegitimacy but further discussion is moot or unwarranted. Archiving material that is inappropriate (1) actually serves to highlight it, and (2) means that an often long thread that is closed has to be scrolled past, wasting space better reserved for legitimate material. I'd invite you to stay at the ref desks, and hat material not which you think is unencyclopedic in a general way, but which you think explicitly violates a specific guideline, such as WP:BLP or WP:DISCLAIMER which you can cite as justification. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see you in this boat

Just a bit of unsolicited advice. Eschew the reference desk altogether. It's an enormous black hole. There are better uses for your time. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe best to close it down. At least I’ve been unblocked now. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The reference desks may well be in need of reform but a one-man crusade is not going to be the answer. You are welcome to archive inappropriate discussions, but once you are reverted you need to take it to talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did take the reverts to talk where no justification for the reverts was provided. [1] and several other places including ANi. I’m definitely not edit warring but I am testing what happens when out of scope questions are hatted. Apparently the normal procedures for noticeboards, user and article talkpages don’t apply at the RefDesk [2] and it runs some sort of weird system where they delete questions - which seems highly unusual as it removes the evidence of what was said. If someone started deleting posts on any talk page other than their own they would be sanctioned.

I’ve also posted about this issue to ArbComm [3] basically I’m discussing it all over the place so to accuse me of not discussing is highly incorrect and invalidates the reason for this block. Further, I’m hardly the only person interested in putting some order to the RefDesk (see the RfC on closing it, various ANi threads) or who felt the reverts to my close were inappropriate [4] . This is a highly inappropriate block for I am the least disruptive person at the RefDesk. I barely care about the place and would not mind if it was shut down for it is a very poor substitute for websites that are structured properly to vote answers up or down and build a credibility score for contributors.

Hi Legacypac. I'm thinking the bit above about "some sort of weird system where they delete questions" may have come from one of my comments, and I may have given an inaccurate impression, so I thought I should clear it up.

In addition to deleting questions (doesn't remove the record; it's still in the history, but doesn't get archived), people do also "hat" questions. You can also call that "closing" if you like. What I don't find any basis for is your assertion that it's some horrible crime to revert a hatting. Seriously, where did you ever come up with that? It is suggested in the relevant guideline that the preferable way is to discuss on the refdesk talk page first, but by the same guideline you ought to have opened a notice at the talk page when you did the hattings.

As for the rules not being the same as on, say, article talk pages, well, why would they be? Refdesk discussions have a completely different purpose. Closings on article talk pages are generally done when consensus has been reached, or to acknowledge that the discussants have failed to reach a consensus. Refdesk discussions are not aimed at consensus in the first place; they are aimed at providing information. I don't see why you would think the same procedures would make sense at all.

Finally, I would gently suggest that if you ride into an ambit you don't know very well and start "testing" things, this is not exactly being the "least disruptive person" there. --Trovatore (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

using the archive template, which apparently is considered non-standard, is less aggressive than deleting the question (hiding it from everyone) and hatting (hiding it unless someone unhids it). Normally experienced editors in good standing can perform NACs and that is not challenged without some process. Reverts on closes are often not welcomed by any experienced editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Legacypac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As outlined above, the block is based in faulty information. I’ve extensively taken the issue of editors unclosing my closes to various talk, ANi, ArbComm pages. Also note there are very few closes involved and I’m following standard article talk page/notice board closing procedures, but I’m now discovering the RefDesk operates outside standard Wikipedia procedures. I will not close any more refdesk threads at all but consider other avenues to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards or just forget it exists. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural close of template; blocking admin has lifted block. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) LP, might I kindly suggest that perhaps you should refrain from closing discussions altogether? It seems to be a recurring problem for you, whether it's that you make questionable NAC closes, or that your close is fine but you end up in an edit war when someone reverts you. This is meant as a friendly suggestion only, but if you're always ending up at ANI and ArbCom over things that you do, maybe it's a sign that you should stop doing those things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

My actions are not "always ending up at ANi and ArbComm" I've had exactly two brushes with ArbComm in over 10 years before a short post about the refdesk in the current case. The first filed ArbComm against me was unanimously declined. I only wrote 9 words on that case, none of which were in my defense. The filer was ultimately Iban'd against me in a subsequent ANi. The second was the Arthur Rubin case where I was not a party, but participated. His "questionable" actions against me (removing a userright) contributed to his desysoping. As a long term experienced user my NAC closes are just as valid and appropriate as any other user out there. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, okay, but it's you that complained in your unblock request about always having to defend your closes, not me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No I did not complain about having to defend closes. Please reread my post. Obviously there is significant controversy over the refdesk. I'm shocked that after multiple ANis about regular ref desk participants bad behavior that an outsider attempting to bring a little common sense and order to the refdesk is the only person sanctioned. I filed the AN3 [5] this block resulted from and the editor that reverted my close twice was not sanctioned - yet I only restored my close once. That is wrong - restoring one's own post a single time is not edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Further evidence: [6] User:Medeis supported my closes and restored several. User:Irondome and a number of other respected editors have commented here on the general situation [7]. As part of that discussion I specifically laid out the point of the closes here [8] and Admin User:Kudpung responded favorably to my closes here [9]. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I believe I too was a guilty party. Not only did I consider the closes sound, but their reversion somewhat irresponsible. — fortunavelut luna 18:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good, I haven't reviewed any of the closes that led to this situation, nor have I really paid much attention to what's going on at the refdesks. All I'm saying is, by my recollection, you seem to keep ending up in situations where a challenge of one of your closes leads to unnecessary drama. It's just an observation, you can take it as advice or not, it really makes no difference to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a local consensus against him, so he forum shopped while simultaneously continuing the actions that people thought was disruptive.

That is not the same as listening to feedback or building consensus. ApLundell (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry wrong. The Admin that reverted my closes did not respond on his talk page to my request for an explanation. He did comment on a general RefDesk talkpage I don’t watch without pinging me or even spelling my name correctly. I only found that from a later comment elsewhere. I’m not forum shopping I’m olny participating in the wide ranging discussions started by concerned editors about the refdesk. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• While it seems Legacypac is technically in violation of 3RR, blocks are supposed to prevent further disruption, not to punish a user. There is no history of disruption by Legacypac at the refdesks, and I think he gets the point, and if he agrees that he gets the point this block should be lifted as unnecessary. I assume Legacypac will bring his concerns to the talk page in the future, where he will certainly find support for appropriate closures when they are re-opened by the 'everything goes' crowd. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, I haven't looked into the sequence of edits that led to this block so I won't commit to commenting on Martin's admin action. While I do admit to encouraging you to police the Ref Desk, how you do it must be based on your own evaluation of the situation. I perfectly understand it's hard to be the subject of a block for something you did which you are convinced was the right thing to do, and I'm absolutely sure you were acting in good faith - it's not as if you were trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. If Martin correctly assessed that there is technically a breach of 3RR, then the policy is clear what constitutes it, but while a block is of course not mandatory, it depends on admin discretion.

There are only 24 hrs left to go, so if they don't unblock you I suggest you sit it out, read (as I have had to) the comments of those who have described what seem to be accepted procedures for the Ref Desk, then get back to work there with a new but perhaps more careful enthusiasm without leaving yourself open to unwittingly tripping the 3RR wire. You know you can always come to my talk page for advice before you do anything and I will continue to support any reasonable 'avenues to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards' - that demonstrate that both the inquirers and some of the Ref Desk regulars are constantly treating the place as a glorified social gathering. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Even the blocking Admin agrees I did not breach 3RR [10] making this block unjustified. It needs to be lifted now. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the block has been lifted. It's not a block I would have made myself but obviously I can't characterise on the decisions of my admin colleagues. I look forward to your continued support on the various issues we both hope to see resolved on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You wanted me blocked because of two reverts, but your own block was "unjustified" because you only reverted the same thing three times?

Nice. ApLundell (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked that ApLundell be warned. ApLundell reverted my close twice - I only reverted ApLundell once. Now that StuRat has been indef’d from the RefDesk who should be next? Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalker question - how to find page deletion history?

I’m sure this page Draft:Convivencia_Total was previously deleted. Where to check why it was deleted? Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Click on the page history, then below the title click "view logs for this page". That takes you here, with the deletion log prominently displayed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it as a G13 FWIW. (Yet another TPS coming in to comment). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And, incidentally, it was you that G13'd it in the first place (hat trick of tps). Primefac (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

It came up as a new creaion on my my watchlist so that suggests I sought deletion at some point. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the last deleted revision is you tagging it for G13 deletion, and then Rick deleted it. It looks to me like the deleted article and the new article aren't substantially similar so I don't think we need to restore the history, but I don't think there'd be anything wrong with restoring it either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The page seems to be a fantasy game using sims charactors and the creator of that page seems to be almost exclusively using Wikipedia as a webhost [11] for questionable Drafts and possible fake user talk pages. Please look into the deleted version to see what user name was on it and what else they did. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Good time?

Do you think it is appropriate timing to relist this article? The reason I ask is because it appears the article has... history. I have recently been nominating "Reactions to..." articles for deletion with a consensus to delete the majority of the time but I envision the "this was speedily kept before" comments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Legacypac. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saul Levitt has been accepted

Saul Levitt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Promising draft"

Have you tried just nominating these for G13? I don't see the need for every one of those drafts to hit MfD just because someone slapped a template on them; too inefficient. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I wanted to get a feel for what was tagged and how the MfD regulars felt about this situation. Rather not take the heat for ignoring the tags, until we get a bit more experience with them. A whole bunch of the ones tagged are sports stubs that were mass draftified. It looks like, including those, the tag has been used about 220 times. I did a search specifying Draft space for the first few words of the tag to ID them and threw up a selection of ones I did not feel should be postponed or sent to AfC or mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we are in agreement here. I appreciate your taking the time to look at them; what I was hoping to avoid was having every single one routed through MfD - I think we could get consensus on them as a group either through a single MfD discussion, discussion at WT:MFD, or discussion at WT:CSD. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the one MfD. The tag originated with users opposed to G13 expanding. I did not fight the tag, but things turned out as I figured they would - it would be used a few times and forgotten until the 6 months rolled around. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How did you find these?

It's been a circuitous route. Several months ago came across a kid publishing way too much personal info on their talk page. Searched user space for "birth_date 2004" and "birth_date 2003" as a child safety task. The search also turned up a lot of narcissism so the last few days I've been trawling through user pages for "birth_date" for U5 material. I came across a couple in .js & .css pages which I couldn't CSD. So just now I searched Userspace for "vector.css insource:birth_date", "vector.js insource:birth_date", "common.css insource:birth_date", and "common.js insource:birth_date". Also searched monobook.css & .js but they were clean.

Glad to see your block didn't stick. It's one thing to work through a thankless task, it's another to get grief for doing so. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work and thanks Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"infobox person" also works, as does search engine optimization, search engine marketing, social media marketing, social media optimization, reputation management, seo expert, follow facebook etc. I've casually gone through and deleted many pages for these; some phrases now get their pages flagged as spam by an abuse filter. Think of a profession whose practitioners are more likely to misuse Wikipedia for self-promotion or a collection of words that are highly likely to appear in spam pages and search accordingly. (EFMs: see Special:Abusefilter/354.) MER-C 21:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

<noinclude>

I am prepared to forgive it as an oversight on your part. When you applied a speedy tag to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Digital Intelligence Quotient (DQ) you failed to bracket it with <noinclude></noinclude>. That meant that you had sent Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to CSD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Opps did not know that. Obviously only the unnecessary subpage. I tag usersubpages all the time - I wonder why an MfD subpage requires an extra step? Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Maybe it transludes the tag to the mainpage along with the rest of the contents? Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the cause. Tagging already-transcluded AfDs for speedy causes the same problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So it kind of looks like MFD is uo for deletion, but as soon as the subpage is gone the CSD tag would disappear from MfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

You might be annoyed by the result of this AFD but I fear these edits (while somehow failing to remove the deletion template?) make you look like a harsh douche-canoe. I'd be interested to see where the "dates of birth" you removed are (& where WP:BLP says anything about "age" because a pagesearch came up nix). And I suggest you see consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants before you start making major changes that affect all the related articles --- PageantUpdater (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A: I'm not removing the template because I'm not familiar with the correct way to record the result on the talk page. B: We do not post personal info like age (which allows calculation of birth year roughly) of low profile individuals, especially children. There is almost a case to REVDEL that data. Anyway - where did the age data come from? For all we know someone just make it up. C: The entire pageant is a sub-event of a preliminary round. Your refusal to accept Wikipedia policy is troubling. D: If you think coming to my taokpage to call me names is productive... you are sorely wrong. Now, I will keep removing unsourced fancruft on the other state pages and you go follow policy properly. Be thankful I did not remove the unsourced winner names and cities yet. You know we have WP:V. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

OMG? Seriously? Get over yourself, lol. Or better yet, be constructive and start referencing the articles yourself. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I'm a little concerned about your statement that the pageant is little watched anymore. I know nothing about beauty pageants, but Notability is not temporary. @PageantUpdater:, taunting is disruptive editing. Please desist immediately. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} You are correct 78.26 ^{great user name!}, but at the same time, WP:N is not a single event, either...and it doesn't matter if there are 50 articles in RS covering it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree on all points Atsme. I'm not making any claims pro or con about the notability of these articles. If the discussion were about the 2016 edition of the pageant, I wouldn't make a peep. For all I know, the 1892 version of this event is exceedingly notable, and the 2016 version isn't notable at all. My concern was that a statement concerning current decreasing attention doesn't negate a topic if it was notable in the past. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Who said vandalism? Look at Miss Wyoming Teen USA as an example. There are IPs changing data with no sources. There are 33 alleged winner names with city and age and sometimes notes with zero verification. Maybe somewhere there is a reliable source that lists all that data but I've found even the pageant businesses do not maintain tables of past winners like exist on Wikipedia. The lack of RS that cover these businesses is a big part of why they are not notable. The pageant pages are little watched and full of OR. Easy to insert unverified info. Those editors that try to insist on sources are accused of knowing nothing about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

NR-1 sinkhole

Thanks for the reminder about this, it's been on my watchlist for ages since the MfD and I kept forgetting to do anything about it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Good pages like this would be forgotten except for G13 expansion to cover all Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Very true. Thank you again for your dedication to finding the gold nuggets in all the mud. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please remember AGF

Your posted edit summary suggesting that the contributions of a fellow editor "could be made up" is a pretty significant violation of Asssumption of Good Faith. Please consider offering your fellow editors the same civility and courtesy which you yourself seem so keen on receiving yourself. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but people who are rude can be reported to AN:I, and risk being blocked for being uncivil. Please be nicer, okey-doke? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For someone who was just reminded not to insult other editors, you have no right. A completely unreferenced page in a topic area where various editors change data regularly without refs could indeed contain made up info. That's why we have WP:V. What's also interesting is you have banned me from your talkpage but have no problems posting on mine. Seems a little douche like to me. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to re-read that exchange. I was simply advised not to use harsh language to describe your terrible behavior; which isn't to say that I was wrong, but that my language was not so much politic. But, you know this already.

Did you already forget what you were instructed to do moving forward? I have told you before that every time you treat another editor badly, I would fall upon you from a great height. That promise remains in effect. So, when you act poorly, expect me to call you on it. Chances are, though, another editor is going to beat me to it.

Assuming that another editor is making information up is an - frankly- irresponsibly stupid and uncivil accusation. If you are unprepared to offer the Assumption of Good Faith, I am pretty certain that you are going to edit your way into a perma-block. Now, be nice, or begone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said any particular editor is making anything up, only that there is a lot of room for made up info on pages with no refs and where info is changed from one unverified "fact" to another unverified "fact". As for "begone" you forget this is MY talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, Legacypac. After someone added something, you removed it and added the edit summary that it could be made up. When you see unverified info on a page, you can remove it or tag it as needing a citation, but you must see how suggesting that the editor made it up is a personal attack. This is the point that everyone in your recently filed ANI complaint was trying to tell you; you need to learn how to think about your actions and edit summaries before adding them. If you cannot learn this, I imagine your time here in Wikipedia is going to be a never-ending series of tragic misunderstanding where you end up indef blocked. I have seen it happen to others, so please - learn. There is no shame in asking for a WP:MENTOR; you clearly need some guidance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Okay, clearly this is not going anywhere productive. Jack, you've made your point very thoroughly, so it's time to drop the stick. If you don't want Legacypac on your talk page, it seems only fair to leave his alone. You don't have to like him, but it's time to walk away. Legacypac, you're well within your rights to remove any further comments here, I don't think replying further has much point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was done anyway. Thanks for adding a full stop to the convo, Premediated Chaos. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My talkpage is always open for people who wish to dig a big hole for themselves. Comments about my mental state and how long I will be on wiki are not helpful [12] and could be viewed as harassment. I'd suggest stopping making my editing your concern. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Kalae

Okay. You preserved Draft:Kalae from G13. There are two copies of it, one in a sandbox. We can redirect the sandbox to the draft, but the draft is still a possibly notable architectural topic in need of heavy copy-editing by someone whose English is better than the original author, who hasn't edited in a year. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Redirect the sandbox. Hopefully someone will pick up the Draft. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely. Maybe there should be a Guild of Draft-Incubators, but, until there is, it will probably stay there, and it will be up for G13 in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it myself. I'm no expert on these houses but at least I've sat on deck of a similar house in NE Thailand and I own something somewhat similar in Malaysia. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Drafts v Sandboxes

I'm struggling to get my head around the different restrictions on Deletion tags that there appear to be between drafts in main space, i.e. Afc, and drafts in sandboxes. Given that both can be, and are, submitted for review, I don't get the differing approaches. Could you point me in the direction of the guidance/policies on this? Many thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

thank-you for pitching in at AfC. It's somewhat screwed up and confusing because a committee designed the system over time. Read WP:CSD. Ax applies only in ARTICLE space. Gx is General and are useful in Draft and Userspace as well as mainspace. For Drafts and Userspace I use WP:G11 for SPAM/Promo and G12 Copyvio (including unattributed copies of mainspace pages sometimes) Blank or otherwise evident test Draft pages go WP:G2. WP:U5 is a catchall for all kinds of garbage in User space but nowhere else. G3 is useful for hoaxes and vandalism anywhere. Anything declined by an Admin has to go to MfD. Master these CSDs and you'll be able to deal with almost any junk in Draft or Userspace. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also you can't really remove a sandbox or a usertalk or main userpage - though it can be deleted so the info that was there is inaccessable - I usually just blank these pages of problematic junk and AfC submission templates. No need to bother with a CSD or MfD unless it's an attack page or something really bad. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Page mover permission

Hello Legacypac.

I have supported your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.

With this permission, you will have the ability to moves drafts to mainspace and suppress the redirect. I think that you shouldn't do this to other people's drafts, because they may have bookmarks to the original draft location. However, this may be just an opinion, there is no rule for this, and you should in the end do what you think is best. If you suppress redirects when moving drafts to mainspace, I would then ask that you ensure that you include a link to the mainspace target in the log, so that the returning author doesn't think their draft was deletion. Probably, there is a script will advise the first author of what you just did, I don't know, but still I think helpful log records are always a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Drafts to Mainspace should just get a redirect. That helps with attribution. In mainspace occasionally you find Joe Blow needs to move to Joe Blow (something) so that Draft:Joe Blow or some new page can become the primary topic. Happens especially when someone gets elected to high office or becomes suddenly famous and some obscure subject is at the mainspace Joe Blow. Andrew Wilkinson and United Conservative Party are recent such cases I recall. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 06:05:27, 9 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DonnaSaunders

• DonnaSaunders (talk · contribs)
  • User:DonnaSaunders/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission on John Stuart 1930-1956. I understand the "One Event" reasoning. May I ask if it would be better to submit a draft titled Stuart Saddle, that being a landmark in the Eastern Arthur Ranges in Southwest National Park, Tasmania, providing information of the area and it's location and how it came to be named? Thank you. DonnaSaunders (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DonnaSaunders (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes lots of people die, and there was nothing extraordanary about his death. Even better, expand the existing article on the national park to cover features, briefly noting why a feature is named after this person, using a good reference. Expanding existing pages is always a better way to start on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kate Gibbs

Thanks for asking for my opinion. I don't want to become too involved with it because it is yet another "alansohn article". However, my opinion would be that she does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Although with a different title, she serves the same role in her county as Thomas A. DeGise which we deleted here. I don't see any significant in-depth coverage outside of the local newspaper and even that is mostly routine election coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also the sources are predominantly primary with some local news coverage, nothing to get it close to WP:GNG level. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you. That lines up with my quick assessment. Created by a new acct and in AfC so not related to him. I'll go decline it. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If you check the history of that draft, you'll see why I said that.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

True that. Appreciate the feedback. That page should never make it to mainspace now. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

---

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)