User talk:Legacypac/Archive 17

Statement
I made a poor choice in using a particular word to describe behaviour I found problematic and threatening from an Admin. I never intended to label anyone with an offensive word, but rather to comment on behaviour.

I was recently labeled xenophobic by an Admin at AN, but racism or fear of foreigners goes against every fibre of my being (as a read of my userpage suggests). Therefore I understand how hurtful having an inappropriate label applied to your good name is. So I unreservedly apologize to User:BrownHairedGirl and the community for any offensive I caused.

I have repeatedly asked BHG to lay off the criticisms because while she may make some valid points she also makes significant errors in her statements about me. I requested she no longer post on my talkpage and that was ignored so I started removing her unwelcome posts but that backfired as well.

Kindly consider that I am only a participant on Wikipedia to increase access to knowledge for our readers and to make our coverage of that knowledge as correct, verifiable and balanced as possible within the constraints of a decentralized volunteer effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my suggestion: strike everything above except "I unreservedly apologize to User:BrownHairedGirl and the community for any offensive I caused." If you unreservedly apologize, which is the right thing to do, then don't list your grievances and reservations. Absolutely nobody cares why you're upset and called her a bitch. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't that one can claim no one cares. Obviously, if this feud doesn't get resolved and it continues, we will care a lot. I do agree that you should separate an apology from any complaint or explanation as it waters down the apology, Legacypac. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I intended this meaning and nothing else . I am very sorry for all offence caused. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly care what LP's grievances are, even if I also disagree with the name-calling. The unfortunate thing about this fiasco is it directs all negative attention toward LP, when various other parties involved in this stupid "portalwar" deserve quite a bit more scrutiny themselves (while ArbCom did not take the RfArb I opened about two weeks ago, the situation has deteriorated to the point that they probably would accept such a case now).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pregnant comments on a blocked users page? I recall an article about billiards and some other stuff around that time [pause] I liked the article …? cygnis insignis 18:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of digging into details because this isn't the venue for it, and doing so would really need an ArbCom-style pile of diffs. As I said, I raised this at RfArb recently, so that's the place to look if details are sought (though I got my dramaboard stuff mixed up; the RfArb was actually opened by Robert McClenon, on 23 March 2019). PS: When I posted this, it wasn't clear whether LP's block was going to last long (I'm not sure that's changed, actually; I haven't been on here every day, and when I am on, I have a lot of stuff to catch up with).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Legacypac, I'm sad about having had to place this block, and I am one of many, I think, who are looking anxiously to see if you can alleviate our concerns. But try as I might, I can't get "bitch at someone" out of this usage, and I am unwilling to brush it off. You don't necessarily have to convince me, but I'm sure you saw I'm not the only one who thought this unacceptable. If you find this unhelpful or gravedancing, please revert and I won't bother you on your talk page anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice concerning SNC-Lavalin affair
Curly Turkey has proposed a TBAN for Legacypac concerning the SNC-Lavalin affair. Full disclosure, he has also made allegations against myself, which unsurprisingly I think are without merit. I take no position on those against Legacy at this time. Anyway, I am not sure how this should be dealt with given Legacy's ongoing block for other reasons. The ANI is here should editors see the need to comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Closing of WP:AN discussion
Legacypac, please see my close here:. It was a complicated discussion with little consensus about any course of action, but I've done my best to summarize as follows: --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Legacypac's indef block remains in effect. No admin should unblock based just on the comments Legacypac has made in their defense so far, as there is consensus that it isn't sufficient. There is no community ban. Legacypac can choose to make another unblock request on their talk page at any time, which can be reviewed by any uninvolved admin. Both Legacypac and the uninvolved admin should review the concerns expressed in this thread. Some possible ideas for further unblock conditions for Legacypac and the uninvolved admin to consider are listed in the #Unblock conditions section. Reading between the lines of most of the comments, there does seem to be an overall consensus that a fundamental change in Legacypac's approach is in order if a community ban is to be avoided. A more in-depth rationale for this close can be seen in the last sub-section.


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

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

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

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


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

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

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

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

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

Are you there and do you care?
There's a lot of talk at the case request about the status of your block as it goes forward, which now seems to be happening. I thought maybe it might uncomplicate matters if you indicated whether you are even watching WP right now and if you care to participate in the case at all. (be aware that while your participation is by no means mandatory, not participating does not prevent the possibility of further sanctions if the committee deems that to be an appropriate course of action) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ... while your participation is by no means mandatory, not participating does not prevent the possibility of further sanctions ... which kind of makes participation mandatory, doesn't it? Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. If LP has done nothing wrong regarding the SNC-L dispute then there wont be any further sanctions. If they have done something wrong but the Committee believe the current sanctions are sufficient to deal with their behaviour there then there wont be any further sanctions. If they have done something wrong and the committee believe that small changes to their existing sanctions will be sufficient then there will only be those small changes (whether that would be further sanctions can be argued either way (and it's an argument I'm not interested in having) . If people are accusing LP of doing bad things (as they've been named as a party I presume so, but I haven't been following the dispute at all and haven't read the request in any sort of detail) then they may wish to rebut the allegations and/or offer a different interpretation of events, or they may wish to let their actions speak for themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , we are all volunteers here, nothing  is mandatory at  all, not even WP:ADMINACCT (although  it  may  entrain  sanctions or loss of admin  rights). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just like if the police come to your house to arrest you, you don't have to go with them. Look at Thryd's comment here: if Lpac has done no wrong, then there won't be any further sanctions. I'm sure Lpac finds that super reassuring, from an admin who has accused Lpac of a whole lot of wrongdoing over a long period of time. The point is: is anything that CT is accusing Lpac of worse than Lpac's treatment of BHG? If not, then what the F is the point of unblocking him to participate in a misdemeanor case when he's already blocked for a felony? I don't think Lpac is blameless here, but there is a segment of this community that has a real problem with leaving people alone when they ought to be left alone. – Levivich 02:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My accusation is that he's been POV-editing a contentious politics article and bullied an editor off the page. Some might interpret that as "worse than Lpac's treatment of BHG". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about everything. The problematic behavior stopped many weeks ago and will not continue while he's blocked. What is the point of taking up the time of other editors to examine Lpac's conduct? Sanctions are supposed to be preventative: what will they prevent? If/when Lpac is unblocked, if he resumes this problematic behavior, it can be examined then. If Lpac doesn't resume the behavior, then there will be no problem. Putting aside issues of "right" and "wrong", I see no practical benefit from using up resources to include Lpac as a party when he's already indef blocked. I don't know if it's up to you anymore, but consider this me lobbying you to remove him as a party for the sake of saving time for everybody else. – Levivich 02:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever LP is or is not guilty  of, I  think  it's time to  leave his talk  page alone and put  an end to  the grave dancing. It's entirely up  to  him  if he wishes to  comment. He know the rules more than most  people.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich—if the charges were against Legacypac alone, I'd agree—there'd no longer be a dispute to be settled. But as I stated at the case page, there's no way I could have left him off the list and not be attacked for leaving him off in bad faith—there are already such accusations about having left others off it who had far, far less to do with the dispute.  If he gets removed, I won't oppose it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Adele for deletion
There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD. You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion. Thank you, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Management listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiProject Management. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Management redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Verification of supercentenarians


Hello, Legacypac. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Verification of supercentenarians".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed remedy or finding of fact which relates to you has been posted in the Canadian politics arbitration case. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page or, if you are unable to edit that page due to a block, by emailing the Arbitration Committee at. The guide to arbitration may also be helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed
An arbitration case regarding Canadian politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.
 * 2) Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.
 * 3) Curly Turkey,, , , , , and are admonished for edit warring.
 * 4) All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL Query me!  03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Engrish
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Engrish&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 04:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition


Hello, Legacypac. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oaxaca–Blinder decomposition".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 05:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Residual intersection


Hello, Legacypac. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Residual intersection".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP
You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR). This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Max Friedman (wrestler) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Max Friedman (wrestler), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Max Friedman (wrestler)


Hello, Legacypac. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Max Friedman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! 大诺史 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac
Thanks for your hard work.

How do you change the name

Francille Rusan Coden (not the scholar’s name) to Francille Rusan Wilson (it uses this in the wiki)

Thank you Malikwilson30 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Legacypac is no longer active. I have moved the article to the correct name now. Regards So  Why  08:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Legacypac! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I miss you 😭
Nearly all my TV show drafts were accepted and you were the one who saved me from waiting months like some have to these days! Thank you for your service to Wikipedia. Please come back. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 10:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

heads up
I realise you've been gone for a while so you mightn't ever see this. But there is a discussion on ANI that concerns you. Reyk YO! 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban lifted
Your interaction ban with Godsy has been lifted. Should you ever request an unblock there will likely be interest in revisiting this topic at that time. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Aidan Ryan concern
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Aidan Ryan, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Aidan Ryan


Hello, Legacypac. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aidan Ryan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Soldier Wolf


The article Mark Soldier Wolf has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Soldier Wolf for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Soldier Wolf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mark Soldier Wolf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)