User talk:Legacypac/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Ed Bastian

This has to be done thru the AfC process. If you like, I'll review the article formall, & if Iaccept it, as I probably will, I can move it DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Very good Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:54:03, 3 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Karennaeh

Karennaeh (talk · contribs)
- User:Karennaeh/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I felt that this article was different from the Totalization Agreements article because it was specifically discussing Mexico. Is it possible to get this page approved with a different title?

Karennaeh (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss on the draft talkpage and resubmit for another opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bestar

Hi, you posted this comment on my draft. Comment: Please add cites for each paragraph so it is clear where info comes from. I am inclined to accept this page per WP:LISTED but wikipedia is very hard on companies so inclusion of all the best quality sources is critical for the page to survive deletion attempts. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraphs are based on external links (e.g., Bestar website), and other paragraphs are based on sources of all sorts. Does your comment mean that I should use the external links as references in the first paragraphs? Francis Laroche (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indepenant sources do not include the company's website. External links are viewed more negatively while good sources are a plus. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:GJEL Accident Attorneys

Please reinstate the draft of GJEL Accident Attorneys. Your comment that the language is in any way promotional is not accurate. This page was previously rewritten by two users, and the content was also previously deemed noteworthy for inclusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.12.230 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Page has not been deleted yet Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kelly_Hyman

Hello Legacypac, I was able to find books referencing the actress Kelly (Mohre) Hyman and some newspaper articles. I am not ready to resubmit yet but I want to get your take on the additions when you have a moment please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kelly_Hyman Josephintechnicolor (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

contact

How can i contact you via mail? 49.126.227.233 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a link of the left - but I doubt you need to email me. Post here. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

you rejected Draft: Fusion (album) cause you said there's already one article but there's not any article named Fusion (album) and the one which draft you rejected is of different artist not any connection so could you move that draft or do something like that and accept ? 36.252.25.119 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

i have redirected the article by new draft please look after it Draft: Fusion (Prakash Neupane album) 36.252.25.119 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Windmill Hill Cavern

Hi! You accepted this draft at 06:27 on 2 December 2018‎ (can't give you the diff, it's been revdeleted). Could you please tell me exactly what steps you took to check for copyvio before you did so? Because I don't think you were nearly careful enough – I've had to revert the page to a stub version, and that's likely to be an unpleasant surprise for the productive new editor. I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you accept a lot of drafts – perhaps so quickly that you don't have time to check properly for copyvio or indeed for other basic requirements such as neutrality. If so, you are not helping the encyclopaedia. I'm aware that you've already been under fire for this issue; perhaps it's time to pay some attention to the concerns of other editors? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've not looked at your editing but I'm sure I could find things you missed so watch your tone with me. That page was handled and edited by a number of different editors before the copyvio was discovered so why are you posting here? As one of the most active AfC reviewers I accept, decline, CSD, and MfD a lot of Drafts. My accept survival ratio is extremely high and User:Legacypac/CSD_log shows I identify and CSD a lot of copyvio so I'm obviously not soft on it. I follow best practices for AfC reviewers. On every draft I accept through AfC I run an Earwig search and look at the results. Sometimes I run additional Google searches. We all need to realize that searches are not always capable of finding copyvio. In the end the responsibility for copyvio rests with the editor that inserted it, not the editors that don't find it after reasonable due diligence. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you forgetting to inform the creator of the page?

Doesn't one have to inform the creator of the page, if they are proposing a speedy deletion of a page they created. According to the history of the page Talk:Talk/Talk the creator [1] of the page is User:Red_Slash, who is still a active editor in Wikipedia. If I am wrong about the fact that in speedy deletion a user does not have to inform the page creator, please tell me. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I used twinkle to WP:G8 - which is not a criteria I use much. There is no article attached so it's housekeeping. If twinkle does not notify by default, I don't worry about it. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not actually mandatory to advise anyone you're seeking deletion of a page they created (whether from AfD, CSD, or PROD). It's a courtesy only. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, since the page is gone - it had no content. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Kate Garbers

Kate Garbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm wondering if you're planning to clean up this article you accepted. It's possibly notable, but the article as it stands definitely qualifies as entirely promotional in tone, and needs a fundamental rewrite to become encylopedic. You've reverted Praxidicae's G11 tag, but this is one of those examples where just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it's acceptable. So before I figure out what to do with it next, what is your plan? Brad v🍁 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

AfC guidelines allow acceptance of notable topics with correctable issues. The question is - would the page survive AfD? I have no particular interest or expertise in the topic but I watch all pages I handle. Give it a little time and see how it improves. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It might survive AfD, but we're still not supposed to accept spam. Blatant advertising is one of the quick-fail criteria, and it's listed as such on the AfC flowchart. This needs cleanup, either here or back in draftspace, as right now this qualifies for G11. Brad v🍁 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's about a person, an activist against human trafficing. It's not a speedy candidate. In the effort you took to complain here you could have fixed the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I'm asking you why you accepted spam and what you plan to do about it. Brad v🍁 02:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not spam. It could benefit from some improved wording. Did you read the talkpage where you can see it came from an edit thon at an Amnesty event? A volunter wrote this and it was moved by (what looks to be) an event coordinator who felt it was notable. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

New Changes To My Article

Dear ::Legacypac

I pray that you are well... I have been working on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hemdee_Kiwanuka with jmcgnh and I hope I've made enough improvement for you to undo the decline you put on it. Due to your concern that Hemdee Doesn't meet WP:ENT criteria for notability, I went ahead and added more references that supports your concerns. But in my defense, I watch Tosh and the show does use Youtube clips, but the show also does sketch Comedy where it features actors, just like on Jimmy Kimmel live! when he has actors doing fake news.

I am a very wikipedia fan and I am always on wikipedia for everything! The reason I wanted to create Hemdee Kiwanuka's page is because I am a fan of the Kiwanuka family... His mother the singer Halima Namakula and his sister TV host and singer Rachel K (musician) and since I am Ugandan and I've been following the family and Hemdee Kiwanuka's career for a long time I believe he deserves a wikipedia page. So I tried to create one without knowing the guide lines.

I hope I've made some improvement, because I would like to create more pages of unknown Ugandans who doesn't have wiki pages. Thank you for your time and please take a second look, I would love to get better.

Leah Kiwanuka (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Joe Sola- External References

Hello! Thank you so much for looking at the page I created and for submitting it for review. I hope you're enjoying a beautiful start to the winter, whether in B.C or Borneo! (my parents live in Victoria and I'm excited to join them for x-mas)

As this is my first article I want to ensure it's perfect and adheres to Wikipedia's standards, so I appreciate your help.

1. Would you recommend all of the external links be deleted? Normally, artists always include all work/residency experience as it is considered just as valuable as their exhibition history, however if Wiki considers this to be unconnected I'm happy for it to be deleted.

2. For one of the external links- 356 Mission- I felt this important to include as it was a highly regarded arts organization (similar to the Hammer museum) which does not have it's own Wiki page (yet!). However, if this is deemed unnecessary by Wiki I'm happy to omit it as well.

Thank you once again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbuko (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not put thru AfC South African Tourism

Hi may you kindly advise why you said not put thru AfC? What is missing on the article? Tomend123 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not say anything was wrong or missed. AfC is a process for accepting drafts. The page had AfC tags but had not been through the process. I just removed the tags. No worries. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wang Zixuan

Are you recommending that the draft be accepted, in which case I can move the redirect into neverland, or are you just saying that the redirect is there? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Replied on draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Christmas Tree (1991)

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 (contribs • talk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Katharina_Boll-Dornberger

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 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey

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. Brad v🍁 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. Brad v🍁 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 improvement

Giovanni Parmigiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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? Brad v🍁 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. Brad v🍁 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. Brad v🍁 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 you

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)

Jackson Pollock (supercentenarian)

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)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

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.

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

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)

Draft:Manfred Yuen

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)

Draft:Marina Jirotka

Hi - I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing the page. I'd actually tried to keep it very brief, not realising that I needed more/better secondary sources, but I am now going through, expanding it and adding those so thank you very much for your comments. I'm not quite sure about it reading like advertising - my background is in marketing so it's possible I am coming across as 'selling', but I will try to make my tone more neutral. Thanks again - this is all a very valuable learning curve. Octaviapink 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octaviapink (talk • contribs)

Glad the feedback was helpful. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Legacypac widgets

Is this going to be used, or should I G13 it when the timer hits 6 months? CoolSkittle (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @SmokeyJoe: as well, since he created this. CoolSkittle (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That ultimately lead to the "Reject" option in AFCH. I tagged it for deletion as a test page. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season template

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)

(tpw) IP, if you wish to do so, you can create a draft page for this topic by clicking this link: Wikipedia:Article wizard. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I Already created an Article about that. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Brad v🍁 21:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Puzzlement About Castro

Can you please help to explain what happened with Luis John Deleon Guerrero Castro? It appears that you accepted a draft by User:Ljmamis27 with that title. There is an acceptance message on their user talk page. Then Twinkle notified me that it had been tagged for speedy deletion as R2, a redirect from mainspace to another space. That would happen if the article had been draftified after you accepted it, and that might have been done because it had no footnotes, only end references, and didn't verify the key claim to notability, which is that he was elected to the territorial legislature. I declined another copy of a draft on the same person, noting that he appeared to be notable but that there was no source for that claim. The same draft was then resubmitted without adding the appropriate source, and I had to decline it again, not for notability reasons, but for verifiability reasons. Anyway, do you know what then happened to the draft that you accepted? It seems to have disappeared. I can find the one that I declined, but not the one that you accepted. I am puzzled. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As I understand it Legacy approved the drafts moments after you had moved it from user to Draft space. The redirect that was left behind is what was then put into mainspace and later R2'ed. As the article contained clear indications of notability, reliable sourcing, and no major BLP issues I have accepted the draft. It is currently at Luis John Castro. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, User:Legacypac - Interesting. In that case, it appears that Legacypac and I had an edit conflict on a move, and occasionally an edit conflict on a move results in two copies of the page. If the article now has a reliable source for the election, then that takes care of that. As I said, I never had an issue with notability, only with verifiability. It must be remembered that merely stating that someone has done something that is ipso facto notable, such as competing in the Olympics or being a Senator, doesn't mean that an article should be accepted, although it does mean that a source should be requested if there isn't one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

So where did the version with the extra middle names come from? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There was a link to the House of Reps election result page and a variety of other sources for other parts of the page. There was an edit conflict I can't really decipher. I think I tried to move it to the longer name direct from userspace and ended up at a Draft page moved by Robert but I can't be sure now. I was going to do some cleanup post move but backed off after I edit conflicted with Robert. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Animasia Studio Article Rejected

Hi Legacypac,

I just received the notice that my article has not been accepted. Do you have any tips, help or advice for me to make this work? I really want this article live. Appreciate it and I'm going to keep working on this draft and resubmit at a later date.

Cheers YusufAnimasia (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You are getting paid while I volunteer. Figure out the appropriate inclusion criteria and make sure your page meets them. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:YusufAnimasia - My advice is that it would be a better use of your company's resources to pay to improve its own web site than to use paid editors in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoology and Young Earth Creationism

Hello, Legacy! Following up on your recent edit on List of cryptids, the connection between Young Earth creationism and cryptozoology is well documented in academic literature on the subject. We have a section on this topic here with plenty of sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hardly well documented. There is little connection at all. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The section contains three academic texts discussion the connection. Academics like Donald Prothero have a lot to say about this connection and overlap (for example, see Prothero, Donald R. (25 August 2015). The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-53942-5.). If you have additional reliable sources discussing this, I'd be glad to read them over. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft talk:AI Peer Review/Temp -> Re: errant speedy deletion box deletion

Say Legacypac and Justlettersandnumbers, for the record, I was the one who mistakenly deleted the SPEEDY DELETION box after making the revised article on the Draft talk:AI Peer Review/Temp page. Didn't register the part where it should only be deleted by another editor making the revisions other than the creator. May or may not be any big deal, but as a first time author not looking to pull a fast one, have too much respect for Wikipedia which puts competing ideas right next to each other as opposed to most one-sided echo chamber forums. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yanfeng Automotive Interiors

You moved this out of draft space and someone came along a few minutes later and tagged it for a speedy. IMO it is rather spammy. What was your thinking on this? I took the speedy tag off to buy some time for review. Uninvited Company 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not a WP:MILL company "Yanfeng Automotive Interiors has 110 manufacturing plants and technical centers in 20 countries and 33,000 employees. Turnover is approximately USD 8.8 billion" It is a huge. According to a 2017 report the company is the 32nd largest automotive parts supplier (all types of automotive parts) in the world, and second largest in China. [www.berylls.com/wp-content/uploads/.../20180704_Studie_Top_100_2018_EN.pdf] It's fairly new because of a merger. At some point companies get big enough that they are notable. Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:DJ Astro Black

I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:DJ Astro Black, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Some sentences seem promotional but the article is not exclusively promotional. Thank you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Off to MfD. The creator is being annoying. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

my article Shahram Mirjalali

Hello Dear Legacypac, i hope you are doing great, it has been like days i am trying to figure out the reason you declined my article but i couldn't find out, i did asked around and i removed those references that was belong to google play or other stores maybe it is not suitable in wikipedia! i am new here and my English isn't so well so i am giving it a chance to ask you directly if you could please give me hand and let me know how i can fix my page errors so i could publish it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shahram_Mirjalali

Much Respect Mirjalalishahram (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Legacypac, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

CoolSkittle (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

CoolSkittle (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! -Fwth

File:Restaurant Bob l'éponge (1).jpg

Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, Legacypac!

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

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

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

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

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

Take my advice...

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

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

Little Help

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

Cornelis Klein

Legacypac:

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Evidence statement removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Kosovo-note

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

Thank you, Mm.srb (talk)

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

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

Draft:Ivan Watson

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

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

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

Queen of England? Elizabeth II?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The monarchy is an "office"? Where is her "office" located? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year, Legacy!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Legacy,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

New powers

I’ve made you IP block exempt for 24 hours. You should now be able to edit from that restauarant. Next time you run into trouble, ask for your user rights to be modified. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I followed the directions correctly but they are confusing. Happy New Year Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. My read of the documentation suggests that this page is the right place to submit a request for IP block exemptions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion about a page you commented on

Hello Legacy, about seven months ago you commented about the page William George Mensah Brandful, an article which is currently in draft space. Your comments explained that the article contained too many praise words and a lot had to be removed. Is it possible for a different editor to delete the entire article and present a new one concerning the same person for review? Thanks Kinvidia (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no specific recollection of that page. In general of course you can start a draft on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)