Jump to content

User talk:Legacypac/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

09:12:35, 17 March 2018 review of submission by Willowisawisp


I don't understand what I need to do to get this published. I was looking up this band a while ago and couldn't find any details of the recordings (i.e. track listings) on Wikipedia. I looked it up elsewhere and decided to make a page so others could find it. This is a very important record in it's genre and has been included on several compilations of the band since release. The band itself is hugely influential and was even championed by legendary radio DJ John Peel.

I provided two sources that mention the importance of this album and all over Wikipedia I see stub articles of albums with no information or sources for notability of that particular release (which shouldn't be a bad thing for releases from notable artists) so why has this been declined?

Willowisawisp (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

AfC reviewing

Hi, Thanks for your support and kind words at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Eagleash (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any questions just ask at AfC talk or ping me on the article and I'll try to help. I really want to clear the backlog as it is being used as a reason to keep the torrent of spam post ACTRIAL on. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Page mover

Sorry, I have to revert this. I was not aware of the discussion with other admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung did you happen to see this conversation? I know this is likely coming from the lengthy ACTRIAL conversations, but just wanted to check that you saw it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: FYI, you removed the NPR right—not the page mover  :) sorry about all that Legacypac. At some point your work will be (more) appreciated. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim I would not use pagemover was incorrect. Just a little NPPing last night resulted in at least 4 moves to Draft where I could have surpressed the redirects. Getting and keeping simple PERMs around here is really hard. I have to regularly request deletion of redirects I create. Legacypac (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Makes one think some admins think they are holier than thou sitting in judgement of an obvious good faith contributor who only wants to reduce the Admin workload by removing some mindless tasks from the Admin to do list. Maybe I need to take this to ArbComm or something. All very very insulting and abusive. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you know; yes and no. You know what'll happen: You will keep bugging XYZ admins for a page move—all in good faith beause they need to be done—and sooner or later one of them is going to turn round and say, "You can do this, and save XYZ admins the trouble." After all, I mentioned NOBIGDEAL—NODEADLINE too :) but people will notice, and when they suddenly realise they can save themselves a lot of work by one flick of a switch—bingo. But I understand your feelings (sort of—I'd be a really crap page mover!!!) —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll just keep noting this opportunity on my G6s. Some admin is smart enough to follow policy eventually. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think LP's work more than justifies the PM right, but I can't overturn a consensus by my fellow admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:47:04, 22 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Loudbabyjoe


Respectfully, you are incorrect in your assessment and comment of: "Paid Work on other artist albums is not notable. He did not win a grammy the album by someone else did".

The Award was NOT for the artist Depeche Mode or for the original song. The Grammy Award was for Best Remixed Recording and it was awarded to Dennis White, aka. LATROIT. Please view the following videos, which showing him receiving the award.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_XCKVf09GA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtgS79Pbjgw

Loudbabyjoe (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ladder Life copy revision guidance


Hello! I would be so grateful for your help understanding which copy is problematic in our submission? We edited it to be just facts no advertising-speak and referenced the wikipedia pages of other young companies in terms of sourcing articles in the media etc when writing it. Definitely want to make sure we are in accordance with wikirules but need some help as a newbie. Could you help? Happy to chat on the phone or online. Thank you so much!

50.0.2.19 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)emily@ladderlife.com

50.0.2.19 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Boycott of S&W by NRA

Life is stranger than fiction: A gunmaker once tried to reform itself. The NRA nearly destroyed it., WaPo.

Also: "The Clinton-era assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and two years later Smith & Wesson introduced its first tactical rifle — modeled on the AR-15, branded the M&P15. (...) Police said the [Parkland] shooter used an M&P15 tactical rifle, made by Smith & Wesson."

Wow. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know - wow is right. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Following the suggestion from your user page

Legacypac, your user page suggests reaching out to you rather than assuming the worst. I think that is good advice so I would like to give it a shot. I don't think the whitewash claim is correct. Like you I think I'm trying to make a good faith effort to improve articles. I think my general attitude is that most topics aren't black and white so in many cases I would rather we try to come up with articles/sources that offer a greater understanding. If you look at my Ford Pinto edits you can see that the real effort was to find sources that went into considerable detail regarding how and why Ford ended up with the Pinto. Much of what people understood about Ford's actions weren't supported by research or in other cases were due to the normal information flow in a very big organization vs any deliberate plan. You can also see this in my earliest involved article about the Corvette's unusual suspension design. The best thing we can do with an article is have someone leave with a better depth of understanding. This is why I often want to add more to both sides of a story or in some cases remove information that seems very one sided in presentation (assuming removal is supported by policy/guidelines). I know that you have perceived some of my recent edits as whitewashing. The accusation stings so I would be happy to discuss if that would help smooth things. We don't have to agree on the editorial result but I hope we can both be convinced the other is trying to improve things. Thanks for the time! Springee (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I don't follow car pages and I've not dug into your edit history but you keep popping up on my radar around guns and now UDA. I feel like you are trying to remove negative info from controversial subjects, and not info that is crazy conspiracy stuff but mainstream views of the subject. That strikes me as the wrong way to go about things. If you feel more balance is needed, find RS providing a different narrative and ADD that, don't DELETE the valid criticisms. On the UDC example, I'm not an American so I've got no side in the ACW, but I was educated in both Washington DC and I pay attention to the issues. You are trying to chop down one tree you don't like while ignoring it stands in a forest of critical evidence that incontrovertibly shows the UDC is to its core WS. Southern Poverty Law Center did not invent the idea 20 years ago on a whim and their assessment has not changed. We record history here, we don't toss a source because it is old. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply. I did find the UDA material based on one of your edits. I wasn't specifically looking for the material but it caught my eye. I'm not from the southern US but I lived in the area for many years and have read about the culture enough to realize things are often more complex and I'm at least a little familiar with the issues with college campus memorials to southern soldiers. The gun topic isn't a simple one in general I apply the thought, what do 3rd party articles about that topic (ie the Model X gun) talk about? If those articles talk about a crime then I think we should include a mention and a clear pointer to the primary topic. If they don't then I would suggest weight doesn't support inclusion. Interestingly we had a similar issue that came up related to cars and the RFC was overwhelmingly one sided.[[1]] With the NRA material, I'm not a member (never have been, likely never will) but I do think a number of the articles are rather single dimensional in coverage. The boycott clearly turned into a big thing but I think we should include some discussion of the possible motives of those who did and didn't join. I've found some RSs that talk about the motives of the companies but I haven't added them to the article. To be honest I've largely raised concerns on the talk page, provided reference and hoped that others would edit because I don't want to get into an edit war. I don't want to waste your time but if you are interested I would be happy to discuss some of the potential edits on my mind if it will end up smoothing things out and take some of the rough edges off the ideas. Springee (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Happy to look at ideas. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Legacypac, I know we don't agree on some of these subjects. I can tell your perspective is not mine but please assume good faith. I don't like being accused of white washing or the like. I'm sure you would think it unfair to be accused of tarring. If my suggestions/edits have PAG issues let's talk about it.

I won't always be right and I'm sure not all of my suggestions are going to be worth keeping. I would much rather just collaborate. Thanks Springee (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)·

Everytime your edits and comments pop up on my radar the edits and comments are exactly what I would expect an NRA employed editor would do. I'm not saying you work for the NRA, but it sure seems you are a "True Believer". Show some proper balance, stop going against WP:NOTADVOCATE and I'll not be calling out your very biased editing anymore. If you have a WP:COI you should disclose of course. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-Spam and Wiki-Spam

There is blatant wiki-spam, which should go out G11, and marginal G11 that needs to go out via deletion processes. We are now also seeing COI editors trying to bully volunteer editors into reworking their articles via a combination of edit-requests and dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

and there is clueless wikispam of resumes and facebook posts where there is no conceivable gain other than an ego boost. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Noise pop

Hi - I moved a draft article back to main space - possibly in error. I noticed you on the page's history and wondered if you might have been the AfC reviewer. If so apologies. I left a note to this effect here: Talk:Noise_Pop Edaham (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I just quickly checked it for references and notablity which seems to be ok when I took off the AfC tags. It came up in an AfC category for pages with AfC tags in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, I didn't want to take off the tags myself because I'm not an AfC reviewer, and was clicking through pages trying to find our who the reviewer might be. You've saved me some time and worry. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Good move. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to follow up, there's no requirement for a page to go through the AFC process, so if you find a page and you think it's good enough, you're welcome to move it to the article space. Just make sure you remove all of the AFC-related templates when you do! Primefac (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Legacypac, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

autobio's

Someone must have given a seminar on SEO, Wikipedia, and YOU.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I tried searching "facebook.com" in Draft space - it is like shooting fish in a barrel for finding G11 pages. Soundcloud and bandcamp would be good search terms for non-notable bands and linkedin.com for business profiles. Similar searches in userspace would be productive too. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Spam can.png
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For tidying up draft space and clearing out the spam --Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Legacypac, I was wondering if I could solicit your opinion on the notability of a BLP before sending it to AFD. Kendall Webb appears to fail both the GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL because he did not compete in a high enough association. I know you work a lot with sportspeople's notability, and WP:BASKETBALL seemed to be pretty dead so I didn't ask there. NAIA was not mentioned on the guideline's list of associations, but being unfamiliar with basketball I don't know if that list is complete or a sample. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊

Thanks for asking. I'm no basketball expert, but lots of people watch my talkpage and maybe someone will comment. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Academics at AFC

Hi Legacypac -- do you have a list of the academic drafts you accepted post-decline? I'd be interested to go through them to see why they were declined and by whom. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Just my move log, you 'd have to check the cleanup edit on each one. Legacypac (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is one I like Draft:Ding-Zhu Du solved a couple notable math problems. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of your move log. As you surmise, Ding-Zhu Du should not have been declined; I assume you plan to promote it once you've tidied? I was looking at Draft:Richard Neapolitan but that is quite problematic. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


Attribution issues on approved drafts

You had a look at the draft "User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte" and commented that you were unsure of how to proceed. The text has already been approved by two administrators (one being Megalibrarygirl herself) so renaming it to "Revised Gregorian calendar" will finish the job - no need for it to sit around in AfC. The only real issue here is attribution - I suggest that be handled with the following edit summary:

posting an article contributed by Special:Contributions/156.61.250.250 in edits of 13:45, 13:52, 13:59, 15:12 and 15:21, 21 May 2015

Enjoy your Easter weekend. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:ADD3:F9A2:3E64:806B (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If the admin user wants to promote the page they don't need my help. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl is a writer for "Women in red". She starts articles in her userspace and when she is satisfied with them she will either promote them or create an article using copy/paste. With the second method, the prior history is lost but this does not matter because she holds the copyright. So I think it might be rather imposing on her to ask her to deal with all the intricacies of attributing an article created by someone else. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:ADD3:F9A2:3E64:806B (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
(by talk reader) " the prior history is lost but this does not matter because she holds the copyright" This is imprecise; Everything submitted is CC BY-SA per WP:ATTREQ. Copy-paste moves are always a bad idea and can be fixed per WP:HISTMERGE. The OR-fest you're trying to push is in her userspace and she can move the content when she chooses.Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
all content there was created by an IP, not the Admin. It has not been approved by the userspace owner. Please don't put misleading statements on my talk. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Looks like someone has suggested that "the Admin" created the article. That certainly wasn't me - I said

...it might be rather imposing on her to ask her to deal with all the intricacies of attributing an article created by someone else.

To make it crystal clear I suggested an edit summary explaining exactly who is responsible:

posting an article contributed by Special:Contributions/156.61.250.250 in edits of 13:45, 13:52, 13:59, 15:12 and 15:21, 21 May 2015

When you say "It has not been approved by the userspace owner" what other reason could there be for her invitation to another administrator to restore a page which she had deleted G6? And if she thought the content was defective why would she throw out an invitation to editors to work on it either before or after promotion? It is defective now because you have changed a link from live to dead - do you have any objection to me restoring the current URL? There's no OR and no reason to burn this draft as suggested by Chris. It's policy that if a computer program has been peer-reviewed, someone has used it to establish facts, and someone has inserted those facts into an article citing how they were established no original research has been undertaken. In precisely the same way, if your scientific calculator says that the value of a function is x and you quote that value there is no OR because your pocket calculator has been demonstrated to come up with the correct answers. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:95E9:BAB2:C59C:618E (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

After several attempts I managed to correct that URL. Only the renaming is left to do, and that will be one piece of clutter less in Megalibrarygirl's userspace. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:9D06:1C5:80D:9F64 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Manifattura Automobili Torino

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me out with this page? It's not an AfC submission but one from the new pages feed. It has no lead and is just a list of cars some, or most, of which do not appear to be made by the company but rather the founder has (possibly) been involved in the design or manufacturing process whilst employed elsewhere. A Google search reveals these results and on the basis of that there is a probable WP:CCS and possible notability, but there is little in the article to demonstrate this... it has virtually no content. Any advice? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

First - I want one of those cars! It's fairly new page about a plausibly notable company but there is no real content. hmmm I tried PROD. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Ark Encounter

Be aware that creationism and flood 'science' are considered pseudosciences, and it is an arbcom ruling that sanctions can be applied for people that remove information relating to pseudoscience. In this particular case, your edits removed the identification of pseudoscience. Don't do that.GliderMaven (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the topic, which is a theme park. Don't threaten me. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Consider the source right after "pseudosciences" didn't not mention those term, and (yes) it is a themepark, I tend to agree that all the labels added to the park bordered on soapboxing. Perhaps someone can find a reliable source for the "fundamentalist" or "pseudoscience", but until then, I would agree with the deletion for the sake of neutrality. The burden is on you GliderMaven, and I strongly suggest starting a discussion on the talk page rather than getting into an edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Now User:TechBear has reverted me. [3] Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've commented on the article. WP:UNDUE is very clear on this point. Since I've voiced an opinion, I'm not free to admin the issue. It should seem rather obvious to any neutral observer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, this is a very, very clearcut case of pseudoscience, if it was just portrayed as religion by AIG that would be fine, but it *is* portrayed as science by AIG, and there are binding arbcom rulings that 'creation science' and 'intelligent design' are pseudoscience.GliderMaven (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Ark Encounter

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

GliderMaven (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware already. Take me to ArbComm but remember you are also bound by the same rules. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think only one of us is disrupting the article by removing referenced material. You do not appear to have been previously tagged within the last 12 months. The way it works is that you have to be aware that sanctions can be applied to this topic area. Since you now have, any further actions by you can result in you being topic blocked from creationist related material without warning.GliderMaven (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@GliderMaven: It is not even remotely, by any stretch, a proper reliable reference. The reference is a highly opinionated piece written from a very biased non neutral point of view ("... a vile form of pseudo-science" is very biased and emotive phrasing indeed). He is entitled to his point of view, of course, but no one is entitled to use a it as supporting evidence that the subject project is based on any pseudo-science to which he alludes. In fact, the article contains no evidence that any scientific explanation (pseudo or otherwise) for the biblical account has been produced (that does not mean that it hasn't, just that there is no evidence of it). One can't even call it a 'fringe theory', because there is no shortage of religious believers of various persuasions, who believe in the biblical version rather than any scientifically proven explanation.
Now, of course, if someone can come up with a genuine reliable reference that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis has produced a reasoned scientifically based analysis to support their version of events, I would be perfectly happy to underwrite its inclusion in the article. For the avoidance of doubt: I go with the scientifically proven version. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, are you saying this is the second DS notice in one year? Because if it isn't, it's required. You must be alerted before any sanctions other than specific ones on a talk page can be imposed on you. And we don't deal with enforcement, that's done either by uninvolved Admins as it says, or at WP:AE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that some editors are pushing their religion on Ark Encounter. For example On one side they use the word "scientist" and "creationist" but object to the word "evolutionist" even though each word means some one who believes in the root word. They are pushing their non-neutral position into the article. Feel free to impose the DS they keep threatening others with. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The word "belief" is not contained in ANY definition of the word scientist, belief has nothing to do with science. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
You believe you appear to still be struggling with English. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Cambridge Dictionary… creationist, a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible and does not accept the theory of evolution [4]

Cambridge Dictionary…scientist​, an expert who studies or works in one of the sciences [5] notice there is no mention of the word “belief” Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous Smith & Wesson article

Thank you for being one of the few reasonable people to edit the Smith & Wesson article. As you can see, there are a few S&W employees who have managed to consistently suppress any criticism whatsoever, without engaging in any discussion. I'm trying to get the WSJ to do a story about it, because the history of this article is illustrative of how commercialized and manipulated Wikipedia has become, IMHO. Anyway, I've been banned by Springee and his friend, so please keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfindingmission (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly the page is a big advertisement for the company. We regularly decline much less blatent advertising at WP:AfC. Just be careful to stay NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Universal Topology

It is nice to have you handle this new article. FYI: the topic of Universal Topology of Physics was created by me. There currently has no contents. You safely delete it. It is preferred to use the name Universal Topology. Thank you, Vitumanity (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

you are talking about User:Vitumanity/sandbox. I'm not qualified to fully evaluate that topic but I'll help you move it to mainspace as a favor. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
On further investigation there is more to this situation Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Universal topology and you don't need my help. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ark Encounter. Your edit reintroduced factual errors into the article. Do it again, and I'll report you to administrators jps (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No my edit removed your clear personal opinion. [6] It was you who was wrong. Lots of Admins watch this page so consider yourself self reported.
You may have abused Rollback here [7]. My edit was reasonsed, in line with discussion on the talkpage, included a clear edit summary and clearly NOT vandalism.
You have no business restoring Bill Nye as an expert in evolution or science as discussed on Ark Encounter talk. He is not even an actual scientist, he is an actor who plays a scientist on TV, with no expertise in creation, evolution, geology, Biblical studies or any other area around the theme park. Perhaps as an entertainer he might be qualified to discuss the entertainment value if the exhibits but he is a pseudoscientist being used to call something pseudoscience.
You are edit warring [8] on a DS area as noted by the editor who reverted you.
Now, how would you like to proceed with the problems you abused Rollback and are edit warring? Did you want to voluntarilly give up the PERM or would you prefer a case be opened against you? Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, I suggest you adhere to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. and reword your accusation that Bill Nye is a "pseudoscientist" that you wrote here. jps (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Ark Encounter, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edit [9] has been removed. jps (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Seriously - the guy plays a scientist on TV but he is not a scientist. Look the word up. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Good luck with that argument. jps (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ken Ham clearly does consider Nye to be an authority, or he would not have debated him. You need to understand the difference between faux-scientist and pseudoscientist. And Nye is neither: he doesn't pretend to be a scientist at all, he's an engineer. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ken Ham is most interested in publicizing his theme park. Getting a TV personality to have an entertaining debate clearly worked to that end. "Bill Nye the Science Guy" clearly holds himself out as a science expert in some sense with his self attributed title but he is just an entertainer with no special training or expertise in science. I could call myself "the legal guy" because I know a lot about law but that does not make me a lawyer. I'm also not critical of Nye - he's been pretty successful as an actor, I'm pointing out the inappropriateness of using actor Nye's opinion to label something pseudoscience. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Also jps's conduct at talk in general is dismissive, rude and inappropriate. I forsee a topic ban being warrented soon. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh so do I. Just not for jps. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
My edits are nuetral and I'm not misbehaving Guy. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not so sure JzG. jps' initial post was clearly an abuse of a warning template. If they call good-faith edits vandalism again then they're looking at a block. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Did they abuse Rollback on me? I can't tell but that would be an abuse of the userright. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not inclined to remove the right unless a history of misuse is shown. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Keymon Ache/Educational Inequality on Southeast Michigan

Hi Legacypac -- I've commented on the former & deprotected the title. I need to go offline now, and haven't made a detailed review of the latter, but I see no reason in AfC policy to decline Draft:Educational Inequality on Southeast Michigan. We have an article at Educational inequality in the United States but there's no reason not to have details state by state if someone can be bothered to write it. The tone looks fixable with some deletion, but I worry about copyvio with material like this. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Me too but it was built over many edits by a student in a wikipedia university course. Not a paste in from anywhere. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm...

I really don't like having to challenge my second NAC in as many weeks, but how is giving an IDHT "Oh, I totally didn't mean that -- please ignore the socking and BLP issues" exactly what it asks for a good idea? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey feel free to reopen if you want. Your case is really weakly presented and I'd advise agaist pursuing this but it's your risk. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Dad's Army Characters

That is a list of characters, my proposal was a separate article on the character to give more details as the details are brief in the list, take the example Captain Mainwaring being in the list yet having his own separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScottishElephant (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no special feelings on it but standard procedure is the existing page should be expanded and really well done - then discuss a WP:SPINOUT on the talkpage of the existing page. This is a minor charactor in an old tv show - may not warrent a stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other of whitewashing

Legacypac, you have accused myself and other editors of whitewashing and similar with respect to firearms related articles. I've tried outreach and polite requests to drop the accusations as it violates WP:AGF. If it continues I will bring this up at WP:ANI. Springee (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits speak for themselves. Scrubbing all mention of controversy from a gun manufacturer or removing words like assault rife [1] is whitewashing. I edit from a neutral POV. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the removal. I think we will have to agree to disagree but we can do it with an assumption of good faith. Springee (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Questioning if I have a conflict of interest under the circumstances is also not really AGF. I have none in any way related to firearms or the associated topics. Springee (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the accusations associated with these edits or they and previous accusations will go to ANI. [[10]][[11]]. Springee (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You continue to edit without regard to neutrality. Please try to follow Wikipedia policy more closely. Given you edit like you are on the NRA payroll, asking nicely if you have any undeclared conflicts seems appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Adding my opinions of policy etc isn't editing without regard to neutrality. Additionally I've made only a few article space edits because these are contentious topics. I have clearly stated I have no COI. As I told another editor, I am not, have never been and likely never will be an NRA member or associated with the NRA. I'm sure there are times that I think something is neutral etc but my perception isn't aligned with most others. However, I would ask you to consider the same. I appreciate that earlier you removed the accusation (which is the only part of the edits I would ask that you remove). You are more than welcome to disagree with me but I ask that you stick to the topic. Please remove the direct accusations in the edits above. Springee (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Last request before it goes to ANI, please remove the accusations from these comments [[12]][[13]] Springee (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-whats-an-assault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Hoseah Tjale Barry Ne (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft speedy deletion

I noticed your discussions with SoWhy in my travels around this fraught subject. Have you tried deleting problematic drafts on BLPs especially under-18s under WP:G10? It's about the only criterion on which, as a self-confessed rule-bound inclusionist admin, I'm prepared to do a fair amount of IAR-ing. A lot of the child/YA autobios seem to contain discussions of suicide/self harm, low self-image, body image problems or lack of ability at scholastic or social matters, certainly sufficient to qualify. And a lot of the adult resume type have inappropriate contact details, though I suppose those would also probably fall under G11. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Some advise RevDel but it's hard to file those. I've recently been blanking than G6 as that prevents mirros from picking up the content when the tag hits. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Genuine BLP-sensitive, and all sensitive, information deletion should be done quietly. Email Wikipedia:Oversight. Don’t tag with flags saying “BLP-sensitive info here!” Blanking is actually great, and simply removing the actual data maybe better, as it causes the mirrors to do the same. Post-deletion, the mirrors lock in the last known version. If oversight don’t suppress the information, take that as a message that you are over-stressing. Kids birthdays, for example, are not really that precious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Good point, SmokeyJoe. I just delete the non-extreme cases in mainspace on sight unless there's some clear reason not to. I've thankfully not seen very much that seemed extreme enough to warrant oversight on top. I hadn't thought of mirror site behaviour but drafts, user pages and new pages at NPP should all be in the non-index heap anyway. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No index is a fantasy. It is only slightly harder to find. Links in draft and userspace have SEO value. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute for Caleb Glover Photo

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[15]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[16]]".The discussion is about the topic The photo of Caleb Glover needs to be returned to the UDC page. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Gi076011 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thanks so much for your help in identifying the confusion between Neil Scott and Neil Scott Bogart -

I have added Neil Scott's middle name - Stuart - I hope this elimunates any confusion, do i need to do anything else?

Many thanks in advance. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWise007 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Did you mean to post this one section above? That is where the comment you appear to be replying to is. - theWOLFchild 06:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I intended to post exactly where I posted in response to the citing of the bbc article immeditely above my post. I don't know why you inserted your long post above mine [17] here which is like shoving yourself in line at the store. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, if you say so. It's just that you wrote "You may have a valid point about wp:commonname", and since that edit didn't mention mention commonname and I did (the only one on the entire page), it seemed you meant to reply to my post in the section above. Plus that editor was at indent 3 and your post was only at indent 1, so it didn't appear to be a direct reply to them, but as I said misplaced, and since I was directly replying to them, I posted right after, with indent 4. The fact that I posted here confirms that (so why are you claiming to not know why I inserted my post there?), clearly I wasn't trying to "line jump" ahead of you (though I don't even see how that's an analogy, we're not "in line" for anything and putting my comment above of yours doesn't mean you have to wait longer to post). I thought your post was going to be moved, that's all, it's not a big deal and there is no need to get upset about this. Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 07:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Respectfully, can you help me understand what "Incorrect DAB type parenthetical title" means for Alan Michael (Braufman) and Alan Michael Braufman? The subject has his birthname (Alan Michael Braufman) which he has never gone by professionally, a former professional name (Alan Braufman) and a current professional name (Alan Michael). Alan Michael is the preferred name (as it's his current alias) but Alan Michael is taken by another subject. Would Alan Michael (musician) be appropriate? Help me understand so I can decide if I am warranted in taking issue with it. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music fam (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a mistake so much as something outside the norm creating a weird situation. Normally the (descriptor) should help identity the person vs other people by the same name, usually by profession or year of birth for people that have the same profession. You would not normally search or wikilink the unnatural looking "Alan Michael (Braufman)" but the searcher would use his stage name or his full name. In this case his full name is an available title and we can put a note at the top of Alan Michael saying "for the singer using the stage name Alan Michael see .... AMB". Hope that helps. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Congrax. :)  M A A Z   T A L K  15:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why I got this one but thank-you :)

  • I gave it to you for your excellent reasoning on Afds. I also think that considering subject-specific guidelines, Afd rules are quite lenient on some people belonging to certain domain while strict to other people belonging to some different domain.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Qs about Nikolas Badminton Article

Hi Legacypac,

Thanks for your work/efforts in approving this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Badminton

Can you give me any ideas on how to get these flags removed?

Best Wishes MrVanDigital (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you Badminton? Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha

Ah, I see that we caught up to each other! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I wilfully plagiarized you and started at the bottom of the list. Good job :) Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
PERM is pretty full right now ;) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I hope this helps cut the backlog and allows us to raise the AfC standards too. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess administrators at PERM are confused (though Alex said some positives) and nobody is directly willing to give me NPP :P Dial911 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You do good work - that PERM will happen soon because some other changes are coming soon. If you want to build a great NPP track record check out User:Legacypac/Cleanup Guide Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
All my CSD log is because of this guide of yours. I got even better at differentiating between utter crap and keep-able stuff. Just wanted to ask that, what is it that is keeping you from going into an RfA? Dial911 (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you.-72bikers (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The irony of posting on my talk - where you are always welcome - to tell me not to post on your talk is delicious. Obviously you don't like me pointing out your problematic edits. Users that don't like to be approached directly tend to get flagged at ANi, 3RR, and Admin talkpages instead but hey it's your risk not mine User:72bikers Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Please keep your aspersions to yourself. This is what a admin advised me to do in response to your threats left on my talk page [18]You insist on removing my posts that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? So if you ever do this again you will be immediately sanctioned. Please keep all comments of me to the appropriate article talk page on topic. -72bikers (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank-you User:72bikers for posting this accusation and threat here where I can respond instead of posting lies about me on your talk [19] [20] where you will not let me respond. Claiming I'm harrassing you [21] and that I'm violating policy [22] is casting aspirations BTW. You have been warned [23] by User:NeilN but you persist [24] in exactly the same line of posting. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your message

Please don't put words into my mouth. If you have experience of these processes, you should know that a high proportion of nominations are made by a small number of editors each making large numbers of nominations. That isn't half of all editors. It is not even close to half. Some of those editors go on what is known as a 'deletion spree'. And since I was referring to the nominations, I said nothing about admins.

I can't think of any technical reason why it should be impossible for the software to distinguish between good articles and bad. Cluebot already does something very similar.

The RfC is the correct venue to discuss the proposal. My user talk page is not. James500 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for attempting to engage you about something somewhat off topic from the RfC. Since I seek deletion of hundreds of pages User:Legacypac/CSD_log some days, we shall have to agree to disagree about the % of bad nominations and Admin accepts going on. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Legacypac widgets

No relation, right? ;) MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice he is testing. I feel like slapping a Template:NSFW on it. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So the NSFW template posted Usage comments. Not what we want. I moved the Usage to the template talk. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Still tweeking it. Good test. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

20:37:20, 17 April 2018 review of submission by NikkLivingston


NikkLivingston (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For the Not Suitable for Wikipedia template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks I'm finding it works great to put right on the decline message. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for accepting my article on Aubrey Kruger Barry Ne (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac/Archive_5&oldid=1199202495"