Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 632: | Line 632: | ||
::This constitutes canvassing in my opinion. Same goes for your comment on MaranoFan's TP. As I said, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Informing editors whom he does not want any interaction with, in regards to '''completely different matters than BTK is unacceptable. Leave him alone'''. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
::This constitutes canvassing in my opinion. Same goes for your comment on MaranoFan's TP. As I said, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Informing editors whom he does not want any interaction with, in regards to '''completely different matters than BTK is unacceptable. Leave him alone'''. --[[User:Chesnaught555|'''Ches''']] [[User talk:Chesnaught555|'''(talk)''']] 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Ches, the solution is for WV to leave other editors alone! I'm tired of Admins protecting him when he sturs up trouble with false accusations. I have been very clear I want nothing to do with WV but that did not stop him from jumping on an 3RR thread I started. It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac#top|talk]]) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
:::Ches, the solution is for WV to leave other editors alone! I'm tired of Admins protecting him when he sturs up trouble with false accusations. I have been very clear I want nothing to do with WV but that did not stop him from jumping on an 3RR thread I started. It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser? [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac#top|talk]]) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Definitely agree with Legacypac above.--[[User:MaranoFan|MaranoFan]] ([[User talk:MaranoFan|talk]]) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:50, 13 February 2016
Your username
I'm kind of surprised nobody else has brought this up with you yet. Your name appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME, as it would appear to represent this organization. The policy prohibits names that give the impression that you might represent a group or organziation, even if you do not actually represent them. You can easily address this issue by filing a request at WP:CHUS. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Response: I'm from Canada and never heard of American Legacy Political Action Committee before today. I've used legacypac as an online identity since 1996. I doubt anyone will confuse "American Legacy PAC" with "legacypac" as the American is the distinctive element. I actually tried unsuccessfully to combine accounts across various wiki sites into another username a while back. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess if I am the only one who has even noticed in all this time it probably is not an issue, they don't seem to have anything to do with your areas of interest here so the chance of being actually mistaken as representing them is minimal. PACs play an increasingly large role in american politics, so we try to stay vigilant when ot comes to them trying to spam here, but that is clearly not what you are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note to readers: several users have made reference to some alleged connection between my username and American Legacy PAC. Since there are more than 4,000 active federal PACs in the United States, forgive me for not being up on all of them. I started editing here in 2007 but American Legacy PAC only started in the 2012 election cycle and my choice of username is not some conspiracy planned years in advance. If you bring up this as an attack point expect strong resistance as there is no connection. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Your work on the Boston Marathon bombings was outstanding and greatly appreciated. Nice work on the MIT Police article too! Hot Stop (Talk) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
A barnstar for standing up to the idiots here
❁ ← I don't know how to make barnstar pix, but pretend this is one anyway.
I see you have the same problem as me, being suppressed and shouted down by wiki-retards. My guess is that they do it to sublimate their anger at being such wretched geeks that they're laughed at by everyone in general and girls in particular.
...Oh, and an extra barnstar: ❂ for not being an American. If you think "my fellow Amurr-kins" are irrational, wrongheaded buffoons on Wikipedia, just try living here. You have NO idea how lucky you are to be in a civilized country. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not really about you, but it does involve this nasty user award you have here, so just letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that I'm about to be banned from Wikipedia for calling Americans "irrational, wrongheaded buffoons." They're saying that the "no personal attacks" policy applies to the entire United States as a whole. That might sound like a joke, but they're serious. Are these people self-parody, or what?
- Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
2011 unsolved 3x homicide =?=Tsarnaev bombers
Glad I saw your link to that 9/11/11 unsolved-triple-homicide before it got deleted; I did more research, went back to add facts & support, irritated yours deleted- should dispute if you have patience heh. Although a circumstantial association its compelling, fact based enough and can be further resourced.
All the junk they could have deleted like worthless page aboowwut canada's reaction (no relevance to anywhere or anyone).
Killing was on 9/11/11 (coincidentally to dzokrah's citizenship date), throats slashed, tamerlan seen referring to victim as best friend, fled to russia 6 months right after killing, weed spread on bodies (perhaps to look like drug relation...) dzhokar did smoke pot.
If i see you repost i'll log in and support it. can be a hassle with the power hungry tho.
-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.232.157 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted the new section on the Bombings Talk page myself as I found an article about the 2011 kills started already. But thanks - The people who started the 2011 article did a great job building it very fast. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. -- TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You have been invited, so let's see your hard cold logic, with cites.Sigiheri (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
Could you provide citations for the countries you have added to the infobox today, please? When composing the footnotes, please use the Wiki Edit cite template method, and do not leave just bare URLs, as these are susceptible to link rot. When that happens the link will be broken and the citation will be unreadable. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct1 The article itself has good cites for the countries added. Just turn on any TV or check any paper to see that UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc are bombing ISIS. What I don't get is all the opponents listed that are not actively fighting. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the other countries/groups have supporting citations in the infobox; this is a gap. The UAE isn't mentioned in the article yet. Someone may add "citation needed" tags and I was trying to pre-empt that. Just knowing the news isn't enough in WP. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone who ads a cite needed instead of just adding a cite is wasting their time. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor concerned to provide citations and a tag is better than a straight revert. But that apart, thanks very much for rationalising the Lead infobox and getting some sense into it at last. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- One of the symbols you use in the infobox, $, is misleading. It suggest financial support, not military operations - that was what I immediately thought. Perhaps "m" instead? -P123ct1 (talk)
- Ya, that is a good point. I was looking for something that does not have a wikipedia function like * does. I trimmed out everyone that was just talk, so now we just have different levels of military intervention, either fighting, bombing or supplying arms. 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- One of the symbols you use in the infobox, $, is misleading. It suggest financial support, not military operations - that was what I immediately thought. Perhaps "m" instead? -P123ct1 (talk)
- The onus is on the editor concerned to provide citations and a tag is better than a straight revert. But that apart, thanks very much for rationalising the Lead infobox and getting some sense into it at last. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone who ads a cite needed instead of just adding a cite is wasting their time. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the other countries/groups have supporting citations in the infobox; this is a gap. The UAE isn't mentioned in the article yet. Someone may add "citation needed" tags and I was trying to pre-empt that. Just knowing the news isn't enough in WP. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Cleanup Barnstar | ||
A barnstar for your work in cleaning up and reorganizing the page 2014 military intervention against ISIL recently. Good job! SantiLak (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hello
Lol, Chill out dude. Yes you were arguing for consistency. Note as well I was arguing for consistency. My first comment was to make clear that 3 names for the Islamic State were being used in various places throughout the article. That of course is not consistent. As I said for alot of people this may not be confusing now but this inconsistency in the article may become problematic and confusing down the line. Your mention of the general sanctions did not apply to that situation and they only stand to make this already heated situation more heated. Was it 2 or was it 3 separate ANI's opened in one day about something on that article or related articles? Don't you find that ridiculous? You have a link to the consensus that It should be called ISIL. You don't need explain the general sanctions when you have that. That gives us a reason to use ISIL. Then you have your consistency and that also fixes the inconsistencies in the article that I have pointed out. Win, win, and then we can move on to another issue in the article. Like for instance you have brought up an issue with the map. Someone has changed the map to one that only covers Iraq. Does this new map meet your concerns? We have nothing to fight here. I'm only here to try to improve the article. I think you are as well. No offense. Truce. Or what have you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as cross-I have no issues with you. Just feel under attack recently by someone else. Yes lets be consistent. I made some edits toward that goal. The Iraq map is much better than the red ISIL map. I also took out the casualties that should not be listed in this article. Improve together right. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the attacks and I completely understand. That's actually why I've reached out to you here. Someone sets up a Battleground and you get forced into a fort. You have nothing to apologize for there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIL propaganda
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I meant proof that opposition resulted directly from the propaganda, a negative effect of the propaganda, not opposition in general. Hope this clears up the point. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- You should be able to come up with sources saying the beheading, Jonah tomb, and mass execution videos have resulted in increased awareness and world public opposition, leading to various govts willingness to go to war. P123ct1. It is very clear to me ISIL Propoganda = increased support and opposition, both of which ISIL wants as they seek military confrontation. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- To say "No nation recognises..." is stating something that has not been proved yet. You say in your edit summary: "no need to request a cite here - tons of cites support the point in the next sentence." They don't support the statement that "No nation recognizes ..." at all.
If you really cannot understand that or how the statement is misleading, I give up on working with editors to produce a truthful, balanced article.~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)- How is this so hard. Geo Politically "recognizes" is a specific diplomatic term and "recognition" is one of the tests of statehood. The statement is 100% fact until some country says "hey, Islamic State, you guys are the legitimate government of the territory you claim, welcome to the club of nations." The burden of proof must shift to the person adding a cite tag in proving that some nation recognizes them as a country. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If the burden of proof is on the person who adds a cite tag, there would never be any cite tags. You have switched from saying there is no need for a cite because there are tons of cites already there to support the point (edit summary) to saying there is no need for one because of the diplomatic recognition point. Which is it? This is an academic point for me as I don't much care what the wording is. I will leave it to other editors to go into this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think my point has changed at all - but some clarification was achieved by wiki linking to diplomatic recognition. Suppose you declared your backyard to be the Islamic State. I write "No nation recognizes your backyard as the Islamic State[citation needed]." Now what RS can we find to justify the statement about your backyard or does your claim to sovereignty stand? Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- If the burden of proof is on the person who adds a cite tag, there would never be any cite tags. You have switched from saying there is no need for a cite because there are tons of cites already there to support the point (edit summary) to saying there is no need for one because of the diplomatic recognition point. Which is it? This is an academic point for me as I don't much care what the wording is. I will leave it to other editors to go into this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- How is this so hard. Geo Politically "recognizes" is a specific diplomatic term and "recognition" is one of the tests of statehood. The statement is 100% fact until some country says "hey, Islamic State, you guys are the legitimate government of the territory you claim, welcome to the club of nations." The burden of proof must shift to the person adding a cite tag in proving that some nation recognizes them as a country. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- To say "No nation recognises..." is stating something that has not been proved yet. You say in your edit summary: "no need to request a cite here - tons of cites support the point in the next sentence." They don't support the statement that "No nation recognizes ..." at all.
- Thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Signedzzz
Thanks for all your efforts in preventing this editor from editing against consensus. We may not always see eye to eye, but this is very much appreciated. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
This is in recognition of your many useful contributions over the months to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. Thank you. P123ct1 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) |
ISIL Wilayats
Legacy, i'm really appreciating your work and as a good faith would like to refrain from edit-warring on ISIL territorial claims subarticles. However, please note that your blanking is contrary to WP:BRD, specially in light of 3 delete discussions, currently ongoing. Please refrain from blanking until the discussions are concluded and of course it would be best if all Wilayat articles would have been put under a single deletion proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I feel your restoring of these stubs is contrary to BRD because one was already deleted and others were correctly redirected. At least one other is headed for full deletion. All have very limited, thinly sourced content, that is unlikely to be expandable. When you search the titles often only WP comes up. Why not first develop a bit of content under ISIL territorial claims to justify the need for stand alone articles? Are you restoring these because you think they are needed or because of a perceived procedural issue? Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree to merge some of them - especially those with no evidence of existence like Syrian coast Wilaya, but several are very much notable - the ar-Raqqa Wilaya (fully controlled by ISIL for many months), the Derna Wilaya in Libya (basically a terrorist group with territorial control, claiming allegiance to ISIL), Sinai Wilaya (a splinter terrorist group from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis). Also i would like to ask you to self revert of Wilayat Haleb (ISIL) , where you said "...daesh does not even control this area, so how can they have a government there?", but Daesh do actually control most of the Syrian Aleppo Governorate including the outskirts of Aleppo city and most of Kobane Canton (see the map), having a full administration setup. See [2],[3],[4].GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The content is better dealt with in ISIL territorial claims (where I originally put the list of claimed divisions, and for divisions with limited info). There is a better article already at 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna. For Raqqa, the model for ISIL governance, info should be included in the main ISIL article and the ISIL territorial claims. Around Kobani they have not held ground long enough to establish anything much, it's very much a war zone, with shifting fronts. ABM or Province of Sinai needs an article because it is outside Iraq and Syria and part of a different conflict, but they don't seem to really govern anything, just a terrorist group that blows things up, and the article should reflect terrorist group not a regional government structure. Something like ISIL in Sinai. Setting up nearly 20 provincial articles only legitimizes them on par with Iraqi Governorates or US States, and most are just fiction or not notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Listen, i didn't say they have an administration of Kobani; i said they have administration of Aleppo Wilayat (including city of Aleppo and Kobani area, both battlefields), but they do control most of Aleppo province on the ground and have a functional Wilayat - it is clearly described here. On the issue of ISIL in Sinai - i don't mind to rename the Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL) to ISIL in Sinai, but why do you want to delete it? let's just rename it and it is fine from both views (we can say in the article that they call themselves a Wilayah of ISIL, but don't control any ground as of 2014).GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still ok with ISIL in Sinai and will help you build it Grayshark09 with the focus on the group rather then a geographic entity. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Listen, i didn't say they have an administration of Kobani; i said they have administration of Aleppo Wilayat (including city of Aleppo and Kobani area, both battlefields), but they do control most of Aleppo province on the ground and have a functional Wilayat - it is clearly described here. On the issue of ISIL in Sinai - i don't mind to rename the Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL) to ISIL in Sinai, but why do you want to delete it? let's just rename it and it is fine from both views (we can say in the article that they call themselves a Wilayah of ISIL, but don't control any ground as of 2014).GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The content is better dealt with in ISIL territorial claims (where I originally put the list of claimed divisions, and for divisions with limited info). There is a better article already at 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna. For Raqqa, the model for ISIL governance, info should be included in the main ISIL article and the ISIL territorial claims. Around Kobani they have not held ground long enough to establish anything much, it's very much a war zone, with shifting fronts. ABM or Province of Sinai needs an article because it is outside Iraq and Syria and part of a different conflict, but they don't seem to really govern anything, just a terrorist group that blows things up, and the article should reflect terrorist group not a regional government structure. Something like ISIL in Sinai. Setting up nearly 20 provincial articles only legitimizes them on par with Iraqi Governorates or US States, and most are just fiction or not notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree to merge some of them - especially those with no evidence of existence like Syrian coast Wilaya, but several are very much notable - the ar-Raqqa Wilaya (fully controlled by ISIL for many months), the Derna Wilaya in Libya (basically a terrorist group with territorial control, claiming allegiance to ISIL), Sinai Wilaya (a splinter terrorist group from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis). Also i would like to ask you to self revert of Wilayat Haleb (ISIL) , where you said "...daesh does not even control this area, so how can they have a government there?", but Daesh do actually control most of the Syrian Aleppo Governorate including the outskirts of Aleppo city and most of Kobane Canton (see the map), having a full administration setup. See [2],[3],[4].GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks 2
I won't go into details but WP seems to be getting on top of me at the moment. The thanks really lifted and was much appreciated
GregKaye ✍♪ 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message and I understand why you made it. I have left this message with GraniteSand. P-123 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- P-123, I do not understand what you mean in your first sentence and do not understand why you are posting here. You have given unsolicited comment on another users talk page: "I hope you can knock some sense into them". To me this is ludicrous POV pushing and your ongoing belligerent and against guideline campaigning, of which you know better, has got to stop. Why did you post here? 10 minutes before your edit you agreed to leave me in peace. How is this not hounding? If you do want to reply then I suggest you do so on your talk page. After all the contention that you have recently raised over interaction, your post here is not appreciated. 04:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye ✍♪ 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?
As you know, many articles are being created which are Wilayat type most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks to you and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just propaganda) ? or should we stop their creation? How? Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- The editor that started most of them was indef banned. You could ask for the deleted titles to be SALTed. Problem is there are many valid spelling variations. If new ones get created we can use speedy deletion tags. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
I really appreciate your intervention in the AN/I with a proposed solution. You went out of your way to do that when you need not have done. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Provinces of ISIL
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
G4 is for reposts. The content is completely different, and tagging it for G4 deletion is a serious abuse of the procedure. Yes, you must go through another debate. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Already started, and It's the same, well before the previous version was stripped down with all the deletes, but hey you never saw that. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I reviewed multiple deleted revisions and multiple revisions of this page, and no deleted revision is even close to the current page. Did you seriously think that all of the edits by 175.110.139.126 caused it to end up being identical to the deleted content? Likewise, what about the original edit to which you reverted? Now that I've looked at every deleted revision, I can assure you that every deleted revision was a navbox with a list of links; it was never close to being simply ISIL has large number of self proclaimed provinces. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the page creation edit was just a throw-a-way one liner. Maybe I'm not clear on how close the pages need to be to qualify for G4. The edits by IP 126 created a nav box with substantially similar content to the nav box deleted at Template:Wilayats of ISIL even using the contrived format Wilayat xyz (ISIL) for each of the links. The box appearance was a little different sure, but content and purpose is the same. The major difference is that the Template:Wilayats of ISIL box linked to a bunch of pages that were mostly redirects to the ISIL territorial claims or stub articles. Since those article were all deleted the new version Template:Provinces of ISIL contained 11 links to ISIL territorial claims piped with the deleted redirect and stub article titles. To me this is recreation of a deleted template in an attempted workaround the previous 28 deletions made after community input across 7 debates so far that rejected the template and all the (this time piped) link names inside it - even as redirects. Your view might be different. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)
Hey, this redirect is nominated for deletion but there's no tag showing this matter in the redirect page! Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great catch. The redirect was deleted about 1/2 way through the discussion, but then LightandDark2000 recreated it about an hour later. I've just renominated it for speedy deletion. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Notice of talk
Hello legacypac, an editor has posted something on my talk page which I have now given due consideration to. I do not know what the policy is here but I would like to inform you that I will discuss some of your points on my talk page. I will tag your name into my reply on my talk page so you are aware. Mbcap (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Awarded for your efforts to keep non-notable material promoting a known terrorist organization off of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
New Page Patrol
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. When tagging for Speedy Deletion please be sure to use the correct CSD criterion. For more information how to patrol pages, in particular listing for deletion, please see WP:DELETION. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Please repost my page, I need some more time to work on it.. Thank you
Thanks!! Moshiachweely (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you
Maybe my "Google-Foo" is simply luck, but I've enjoyed bringing a few articles back from the edge. Your withdrawals are most appreciated. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's a team effort at Wikipedia. If it looks really doubtful, we send for a deletion discussion. From there it can be saved and improved, redirected, or deleted. No shame in any outcome. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Nice that somebody sends a thank you. Enjoy your day :-) World wide wind (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC) |
I thought you might enjoy some of the content
enjoy.
GregKaye 18:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Kayla Mueller
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi- can you unmerge the Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition article please?
It appears there was no consensus to merge and this article is currently in the middle of a DYK review. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you know (DYK) refers to the "Did you know" section on the Main Page. Articles are nominated and then go through a review process similar to (though less stringent than) the process for articles reviewed for Good Article or Featured Article status. That's what LavaBaron was referring to. Please remember that when a bold edit is reverted, it is important to respect consensus thereafter. If you feel this article needs a better title, the solution is to propose an alternate title on the talk page, not eliminate the article entirely. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A request
Hi Legacypac, please post further deletion templates for Neelix on User talk:Neelix/deletions, rather than on his talk page. I hope that in moving them to a dedicated page he might feel less overwhelmed by the volume of them. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Twinkle puts them up, I've been moving them. He should feel overwhelmed because he created this problem, some of us are cleaning up. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- You could uncheck the box about alerting the creator and do that part manually; for example, you could leave one note to let him know about several discussions, rather than posting a separate template each time. I understand your frustration, and I agree that he created the problem, but we don't know why (and speculating in public isn't fair). There just isn't any point in making him feel overwhelmed, and with multiple people commenting it must feel hurtful and worrying, so any way of minimizing that would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the thousands of redirects? I'm already doing to much manual work on this. I've been moving the notices to the special page in groups. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just happened to see this go by--Sarah, I'm considering going through and closing a whole bunch of them, the ones that have one vote or more and seem pretty straightforward keeps or deletes. The RfD page says they're listed "for a week or so"--I think I can take the "or so" and run with it. Only thing I can't easily do is file the paperwork to close the discussions. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- You could uncheck the box about alerting the creator and do that part manually; for example, you could leave one note to let him know about several discussions, rather than posting a separate template each time. I understand your frustration, and I agree that he created the problem, but we don't know why (and speculating in public isn't fair). There just isn't any point in making him feel overwhelmed, and with multiple people commenting it must feel hurtful and worrying, so any way of minimizing that would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Neelix
Neelix appears to be on wiki break. For the sake of expediency you may dispense with leaving him multiple, templated deletion notices and such, at least until he returns. You might leave him one note asking to inform you when he returns. Thank you for your help cleaning up Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- He always takes a wikibreak when he has trouble. The template are automatic and they make a very handy way to track what has been cleaned and what has not. They are all off on a subpage and now an archive of that. Thanks though. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- That certainly makes sense. Thank you again. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it is useful to be able to keep track of what has been dealt with, and thanks for what you are doing, but please only move entries to the archive once they are no longer marked as under discussion, i.e. when they are no longer in a for discussion category, no longer have a template. I have now twice moved one back which has not been closed yet. --Mirokado (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- That certainly makes sense. Thank you again. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- He always takes a wikibreak when he has trouble. The template are automatic and they make a very handy way to track what has been cleaned and what has not. They are all off on a subpage and now an archive of that. Thanks though. Legacypac (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
improprieties
Thanks for the work you're doing cleaning up the Neelix mess. I have deleted a few of your CSD suggestions for removal of redirects. I initially deleted improprieties, but I thought about it and decided that's a valid term so I restored it. I'm not reporting this because your judgment was blatantly wrong, just that I think that whenever I fail to accept a CSD I like to let the proposer know, and in this case my judgment is that it is a plausible search term.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you note
Thank you for your objectivity and high standards in closing articles at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Unasked for advice
Hi, Legacypac,
First, thanks for all of your work with the Neelix redirects. A number of editors and admins helped out but you did a lot of the clean-up work after the initial rush of deletions occurred.
Secondly, you mentioned on ANI that you were interested in having an RfA at some point in the future. Beyond knowing policy well and being reliable and consistent, much of what an admin does involves communication with other editors and frequently trying to deescalate situations with editors that are often upset that they have been reverted or they have suffered a personal attack or had their article deleted. When they consider candidates for adminship, many voters look not only at editing experience but also at an individual's temperament and judgment. You can expect your admin decisions to be challenged, for both valid and invalid reasons. One has to be able to hear criticism, correct yourself if you made a mistake or explain to the other admin or editor your rationale for doing what you did.
At your ANI case, you seemed to dismiss the concerns that people had with your AFD closures as if they were a judgment about your decisions when I think what people were concerned about was that it was done contrary to policy and common practice. It sounds like you are making a proposal for the policy to change which is a great way to address this subject rather than making closures that are considered controversial.
Basically, if you want to become an admin, you need to know policies, have a general idea of how different areas of the project operate and an expertise in a few of them, and, most importantly, see if you have the trust of the community. Responding to criticism comes with the toolset and editors will want to see that you can handle it thoughtfully and dispassionately. Good luck and thanks again for your work on the redirect cleanup! Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for all of your work with the mother of all spam projects: the Neelix redirects. Too many people are criticizing instead of giving you the kudos you deserve. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC) |
RfD closing
Hi Legacpac,
usually we subst {{rfd top}}
and {{rfd bottom}}
on closing RfDs, though I like the way you do it better. (To my mind, RfD templates are over-subst'd, there really is no need to clutter it all up with subst's. So someone changes the template, so what, they're not changing what's inside!) Just to let you know. Keep going old bean... you're doing a grand job (thought you were an admin anyway). Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Och, it looks like Ivanvector beat me to it. But the thanks still stand. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: I win again! :P (and thanks to you both) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's also {{nac}} which is a convenient shorthand template for (non-admin closure). You don't have to use it, but it's there if you want to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Reformatting discussion
I'm certain this was done in good faith, but please don't do things like that. More recent discussions go on top at RfD. Many times it doesn't matter, but editors will count on this, such as parsing related discussions or knowing when it's time to close. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- there were so many closed with a few open ones that would easily be missed (all in the same day so no timing issue) but it proved too difficult and I already decided not to try that anymore. Presumably its ok to resuffle a bit to group noms together when another one gets inserted in the middle though right? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- One entry there actually belonged on the next day. I bring up timing because occasionally in challenges, editors will look closely at time stamps to make sure a closure wasn't premature, though that's rare. Open discussions are generally hard to miss since closed ones get a colored background. You should really only reorder discussions if they're already out of order. If you're talking about batches, it's fine to combine nominations; the timestamp on the nomination statement will determine the entry's placement. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson, you may be blocked from editing. I get that you are upset, however, it is not your right to strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- You cited the policy that allows me to strike your personal attacks. Since you have now made the same attack on me three times, plus slapped me with templates threatening a block, I will now take you to ANi. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I did not cite policy that allows you to strike my comments (which were never meant as a personal attack). The policy clearly states:
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."
. Take me to AN/I for what? Making an attempt at humor, forgetting to put in a smiley so you would know it was meant to be humor, and telling you to stop violating policy? Precisely what have I done that is worthy of being taken to AN/I? That I didn't give you the kind of apology you wanted and demanded? I'm not going to apologize for something I never did, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)- Clearly you did not mean it as a joke. You did not head the clear warning on my talk page here [5] and you cited but failed to read WP:TPO which fully supports my refactoring, with clear comment right below, of your comments after I gave you fair opportunity to retract. Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I did not cite policy that allows you to strike my comments (which were never meant as a personal attack). The policy clearly states:
- You cited the policy that allows me to strike your personal attacks. Since you have now made the same attack on me three times, plus slapped me with templates threatening a block, I will now take you to ANi. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Clearly"? No, as I already stated, I did intend it that way. What's clear is that you refuse to accept my explanation. You are still in the wrong in regard to striking the comments of another editor, but whatever. I think you took the AfD personally to begin with and that's where things started to spin out of control. How about at this time we just call a mutual truce and let the AfD go as it will? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Your AfD is not personal for me - its policy - policy you don't understand. I AfD a fair number of articles and thousands of RdDs lately and I've seen FAR less notable bios kept. I do not accept your late brush away of accusing me of a serious COI as a joke. I asked you on your talk page to remove, but you have now restored the personal attack over and over. Take a deep breath and think about how you could lose your editing ability for continuing this pattern of behavior. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I ask if we could invoke a truce and you respond with a threat? <smdh> I think it's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastview Community Church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Warning is in regard this commentary at the associated AfD. Your comments are not only unnecessary in an AfD nomination but definitely a specifically directed personal attack. I suggest you remove your comments or strike them immediately - as well as all the other negative comments directed at that specific editor today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 25. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Warning is in regard to this edit. You need to stop the personal attacks immediately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- See, correctly noting the origin of an article or redirect is part of a massive IAR cleanup is appropriate, as demonstrated by the way dozens of editors and admins are dealing with it.[6]. It is different then an unsubstantiated personal attack where you know, or can easily figure out, it is not true. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing ambiguous or justified about these comments from you:
"Neelix just dreamed these up."
[7];"Neelix's favorite play She Has a Name, and therefore graduated into being part of his walled garden of articles around sex trafficking."
[8]. Neelix has already received enough from editors and admins over the incidents that resulted in him being desysopped. Continuing the browbeating is wrong and unnecessary. If you continue in the same vein, I will have no choice but to report you for continued personal attacks after being sufficiently warned. My suggestion remains: either delete or strike the comments, but definitely cease with the personal attacks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing ambiguous or justified about these comments from you:
- Your templates and comments appear to be retaliatory - see above. If you want to become a Neelix apologist take it somewhere other than my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- In no way are these warnings retaliatory. I noticed your inappropriate edits/comments while going through recent AfDs. I'm not an apologist for Neelix, didn't even comment at the goings-on related to him and am relatively certain I've never even crossed paths with him previously. Your accusations and suspicions are unfounded and unnecessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
RFD
It looks like you missed some parameters in the {{rfd2}} template at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_26. Jimp 01:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
for your timely and outstanding work on a long series of articles about terrorist attacks, and, in particular, for your timely creation of an article on Inland Regional Center, the target of today's 2015 San Bernardino shooting |
.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge request
Can you please merge my reporting into your report or merge your comments into mine? The auto reporting feature I used has more info and more evidence of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ya, I'm not sure how to best merge. I'm sure they will be considered together. You found more diffs, I had warned him and linked to discussion. Let the Admins that work 3RR do the report merge. Looks better that we both reported. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- You apparently place far more trust in the competency of admins than I do. I documented six separate reverts of the term "Muslim" in my report, a clear violation. It would be best for you to close your report and merge all of the comments into my report. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Davis is now deliberately disrupting the talk page. I've warned him, but if he persists we need to file a request for arbitration enforcement for DS. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I warned him too. Happy to support you. Religion has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism and ISIL ! Spectacular fail! Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Some joker named "Mandruss" has now appointed himself the official defender of all things ParkH. Davis, after I called him out for making fun of dead people. Just where do these weird people come from and why does there seem to be so many of them? I recently moved the article to "2015 San Bernardino attacks" due to consensus for a move on the talk page, and I was instantly reverted by another joker named "WWGB" who bizarrely told me to find consensus! Meanwhile, every RS has changed the narrative in the last 12 hours from shootings to attacks, but these jokers don't seem to be able to read, let alone understand basic English. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I warned him too. Happy to support you. Religion has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism and ISIL ! Spectacular fail! Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I just took WWBG to the edit warring page for 2RRing the 1RR warning template. Yes you read that right. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Surreal Barnstar | |
Just because you're awesome! —МандичкаYO 😜 16:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) |
Redirects
I'm not sure why you redirected Claira Hollingsworth and Ashleigh Lollie? These pages hadn't been nominated for deletion. Was there some consensus to add these redirects? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Lollie has be nominated for deletion before with lots of people supporting delete, but not under WP:NOPAGE which clearly applies here. Last time it was no consensus. You restored without answering the stated reason for redirecting it. I've AfD'd it so go make your case if you feel strongly about it. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Slow down friend. I politely asked you a question, why did you redirect these pages? Were you trying to subvert the process in the hope no one would catch you, or was it just careless mistake? No need to respond, I see you've corrected your error. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- No error on my part and nothing to hide. We are advised to take such steps instead of taking everything to AfD. AfD process would break if every non-notable topic went there. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am familiar with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT for "a problematic article", but the Ashleigh Lollie article successfully made it through AfD three times (and you were the nominator for two of them). How has this article--which you were unable to successfully have deleted--suddenly become "problematic"?
- You are mistaken. The first bulk AfD was closed on a technicality because people objected to lumping together so many similar articles. Some of the articles were then taken to AfD as test cases and most were deleted or redirected. Lollie was taken to AfD and went no consensus evidently because of a poor explanation of why it should be deleted. At that time I was unaware of WP:NOPAGE. The third nomination is only after you just restored the article.
- Also, WP:ATD-R states that "sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect". This certainly doesn't apply.
- Response: That is only your opinion, one that goes against GNG and NOPAGE. I don't see how that does not apply, unless you object to even a redirect?
- You wrote that "we are advised to take such steps instead of taking everything to AfD". Which policy or consensus states this?
- Response: See the instructions for AfDs. Very clear.
- I see also that you were unsuccessful here at deleting Claira Hollingsworth, so today you added a redirect. Problem solved.
- Response: A technical decline of a speedy request is hardly a definitive keep. Don't misrepresent things.
- Finally, an administrator, User:DGG, specifically stated at your attempt to bulk-delete all these articles here, that you should "renominate separately". I didn't see anything about redirecting them so you could avoid complying with this. Please explain yourself. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Response: That is only one non-binding comment among MANY on many similar articles of how one way to deal with various pageant winner bios. If you can demonstrate notability in compliance with WP:BIO and then pass WP:NOPAGE these article may be able to stay, but otherwise all the college student, hairdressers, stay at home mommies etc who happened to be in a contest of looks at some point in the past can be presented on lists. If they go one to become notable (model, actress, in business etc) they get stand alone pages. I hope this clears things up for you so you can work toward a more credible encyclopedia. (I provided inline responses to your other points). Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Response: That is only one non-binding comment among MANY on many similar articles of how one way to deal with various pageant winner bios. If you can demonstrate notability in compliance with WP:BIO and then pass WP:NOPAGE these article may be able to stay, but otherwise all the college student, hairdressers, stay at home mommies etc who happened to be in a contest of looks at some point in the past can be presented on lists. If they go one to become notable (model, actress, in business etc) they get stand alone pages. I hope this clears things up for you so you can work toward a more credible encyclopedia. (I provided inline responses to your other points). Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am familiar with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT for "a problematic article", but the Ashleigh Lollie article successfully made it through AfD three times (and you were the nominator for two of them). How has this article--which you were unable to successfully have deleted--suddenly become "problematic"?
- No error on my part and nothing to hide. We are advised to take such steps instead of taking everything to AfD. AfD process would break if every non-notable topic went there. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Slow down friend. I politely asked you a question, why did you redirect these pages? Were you trying to subvert the process in the hope no one would catch you, or was it just careless mistake? No need to respond, I see you've corrected your error. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is very clear on this: WP:BEFORE states: "if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article." At Ashleigh Lollie, you redirected an article which was certainly deemed important; it had been through AfD and was not deleted. As for the rest of the articles you redirected, you had been instructed to submit them for AfD, yet you chose to redirect them instead. It certainly appears as if you have attempted to subvert the process. Is there something I am missing here? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you did not read or understand my explanation above. If you think you have a case, take it to AfD. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you meant ANI. That's the reason I asked you first if I missed something here. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- What does ANI have todo with anything here? You restored the article I redirected. I disagree so They are off to AfD where they should be deleted soon. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your redirects of perfectly good articles appears an attempt to game the system by subverting the deletion process. As an act of good faith I'd suggest you revert each of the redirects you added. How you deal with them after that is not my concern. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- What does ANI have todo with anything here? You restored the article I redirected. I disagree so They are off to AfD where they should be deleted soon. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you meant ANI. That's the reason I asked you first if I missed something here. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you did not read or understand my explanation above. If you think you have a case, take it to AfD. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I've not redirected any perfectly good articles. Susie Q won Miss State in 2010 is best presented on a list. Generally any other detail supplied about er high school or college choice is trivia. These girls mostly fade back into obscurity after a [WP:15MOF]]. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's More Fun to Compute
I've looked everywhere and I can't find the RFA page for It's More Fun to Compute. Wait, what? He's not an admin? Well, he should be! Oh, you just watch the festivities now. "Blocked due to behavioral match with sock puppet xyz." Yeah, that's the ticket. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like I'm way late to the party. Apparently the user was blocked as a suspected sock puppet due to behavior before I even wrote that. Meanwhile, Neelix is still
an admin andunblocked. I love this place! Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This may interest you
User:Kudpung/AOR - of course, this would require you to stop laughing and rolling around on the floor laughing your ass off long enough to file a recall. As you can see, the recall is specifically designed to prevent a recall. This is the quality of RFA candidates Wikipedia actively endorses and promotes. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- No one could get a recall under those rules, which exclude the voice of anyone that has ever been grieved by the Admin and darn near all other editors. This guy has been trying to reform RFA too. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- See our article on wolf in sheep's clothing. You are dealing with people who only care about power for the sake of power, and have little regard for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This is true for most people in positions of power, which is why I recommend eliminating RFA in its current form and focusing on debundling and distributing the toolset. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Really Viriditas, how can you think that is remotely possible from within the system? It ceased to be possible years ago, as soon as, well I don't know exactly when, but perhaps once several hundred admins had been created from children and other users who had never tasted power in real life, and apart from Wikipedia are never likely to. This is a very big deal for many admins, and there is no way any proposal to dilute the power they hold is ever going to succeed. Never underestimate the dedication and focus some admins direct towards holding onto their "power". Most proposals can be easily controlled by a small fraction of the admins. In addition, admin wannabes and drama board devotees are among the first in the rush to squash any proposals that would restore some self-determination or self-respect to content builders. In the rare circumstance where a reform looks like it might succeed, a decisive reserve of admins who have yet to vote can be easily drawn upon. For many years there has been no such thing as a "community consensus" on Wikipedia, only the rubber-stamping and progressive enhancement of admin privileges. You cite wolf in sheep's clothing, but a better example would be Animal farm. The parallels are remarkable. In fact there are remarkable parallels all through history. I was looking at Vehmic court the other day. Then we see various levels of Stockholm syndrome playing out as some insecure editors attempt to secure themselves by ingratiating themselves with those they think are powerful. Unfortunately this nonsense seem very much in the nature of humans, and it easy to see who are the players on Wikipedia. The only possibilities now are intervention from outside the admin structure or revolt from within the rest of Wikipedia. The founder of Wikipedia has made it clear that he is not going to intervene, and is not even interested in what is happening to content builders. The Wikimedia foundation is an even greater disaster area. So there we are. This is not to say that things are completely hopeless. Change can happen. It is perhaps happening in Burma for example, another parallel where the ruling junta also controlled its own terms. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- When approaching a difficult, complex problem that has more than one "correct" solution, it often helps to come at the problem from multiple directions. One direction that would greatly ameliorate the problem as you describe it, is to focus more on the one account, one vote issue. I have reason to be concerned that community discussions and elections involve users employing more than one account. I am also concerned about accounts that rarely edit, only to show up to make edits to keep their tools or to vote in important discussions. I think we could eliminate 10% of the problem right there. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting I give up my alternate admin accounts? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that this is one way of addressing the dilution of power you have raised. An important problem, that I think the both of us are concerned about, is the enormous amount of time and energy spent training bureaucrats instead of encylopedists. I've never been able to adequately wrap my mind around this problem. At best, it's an effort to appeal to the crudest human values, the desire for power and control, to manipulate people and misdirect their energy; at worst, it's a psychological experiment of some kind run by the military. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Addendum: something just occurred to me that might appear obvious to others, but I neglected to mention it. The appeal to bureaucratic tendencies might simply be a harmless inclination towards gamification of the site processes, which would be fine if other competing tracks had the same weight. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Repeat AfD
You participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (2nd nomination) earlier this year, an AfD that closed as keep. The article is now up for deletion again by the same editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Golebiewski (3rd nomination). Your input as to whether or not consensus has changed will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: Nichole Mead
This is about as obvious as a close can be. With ample discussion, and everyone involved except you agreeing on a course of action, a keep close is the only correct course of action here. Given you've already been told off in the AfD for bludgeoning the process, to say nothing of the ongoing ANI discussion into similar nominations, I strongly urge you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or there is a very real possibility that you will face sanctions. Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
About Hyeon Soo Lim
Legacypac:
- Pure speculation on my part: from what I can see, the initial story was reported by Reuters and picked up by other news agencies, some with attribution, some without. That of course not a matter that concerns us here on Wikipedia.
- I think the article may not pass WP:BLP1E. If it gets deleted, I'm happy to email you the text or WP:USERFY it.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind offer, but if that becomes an issue then Wikipedia should be turned over to admins that write fluff Meg McGuffin instead of real coverage of people doing real things like running relief efforts saving thousands of lives and running businesses worth tens of millions of dollars in North Korea, then getting a life of hard labor for their troubles. You are only looking at the latest coverage spreading worldwide, but this person has indepth coverage going back months and years in Canada - see this Globe and Mail (Canada's leading serious newspaper) indepth researched piece from May 2015 [9] Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Differences
.. a side.. I like you article Hyeon Soo Lim. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- thank-you. Can you believe an admin suggested he does not meet GNG but then people say Miss Teen Some State referenced to the local events section of the Springfield penny paper is notable. Makes me want to cry at what the world is coming too. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit in supercentenarians pages
Why do you remove any list of living supercentenarians in single pages? Was your decision shared? Is there a vote about it? I note that the purpose of something like this is to empty pages to arrive to the deletion: First regional/state records, then pending cases, now people that wants remove all page (see Australia!). I don't think that Wikipedia was born for this. Ok order and sources but there is a clear will to erase everything. --151.36.116.153 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia IP editor. Massive inconsistencies and maintenance issues. This has been discussed across various AfDs, on the WOP Project pages, and elsewhere. I suggest getting the Oldest living people and Oldest people by country pages up to date as well as the Oldest people pages up to date, sourced and verified. Merry Christmas. Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 20 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
What does it mean "to Salt" an article?
Explain please.
Thanks!
Eric Cable | Talk 13:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- To "salt" an article means to restrict the title so that a page cannot be created there. Administrators can "salt" a page if it's a title that gets repeatedly recreated inappropriately, and when it's likely that someone will try to create the page again. For example, the page Wikipedia sucks is salted, which means that you cannot create a page at that title. (talk page watcher) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comes from Salting the earth Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Like the Salting of Carthage. Eric Cable | Talk 13:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comes from Salting the earth Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015 2
Season's greetings mate. In regards to the message you sent on my user page, what gives you the right to determine what constitutes a nPOV or not? I simply made changes to a controversial article in the hope of making it better (i.e. in good faith). By removing Kosovo from the countries category, what do you think was my intention? The only clear one is to stop Kosovo's portrayal as a country, meaning independent state. In attempting to reach a middle ground, your biased edits have resulted in a clear breach of nPOV. How come you didn't report the user that reverted my edits? By continuing to include Kosovo in the countries category, a blatant recognition of Kosovo is formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoC12 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted your removal of the category. You breached 1RR by reverting my restoration of the category therefore subjecting yourself to potential sanctions. I get you hold a nationalistic viewpoint that precludes Kosovo from being viewed as a country, but facts on the ground are it has all the attributes of a country and widespread recognition by other (though not all) states. At Wikipedia we have to reflect what independent WP:RS say, not what you feel is right. Legacypac (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I no way have a nationalistic viewpoint; I acknowledge that a significant number of countries have recognised Ksoovo as an independent state; in the same way, you should acknowledge that a significant number of countries have not. That is why I attempted to place Kosovo in a neutral category. By placing it in the countries category, do you realise that you are effectively saying that it is a country? Who's the one with a bias now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoC12 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: the Longevity pages
I'm taking a step back from the discussion on the Longevity pages. I don't fully agree with the actions being taken there or the approach by which they are being taken, but I'm not invested enough to risk a ban of any sort. aremisasling (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Kosovo
On the subject of the edit war that has taken place, please read a new thread I started: Talk:Kosovo#December 2015 edit war on category (Countries in Europe). --OJ (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
2016
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. |
Semi?
Would you like your talk- and userpage semi'd for a while? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC).
Happy New Year, Legacypac!
(Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)
|
I'm not sure if you were aware but in this edit you copied a static list of the actual alerts below the current list. I removed it here but I was curious if I was missing some reason you wanted those specific listings included. Those are all at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts/Archive albeit out of order in December for some weird reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- On second thought, I should ask first but I don't think Ollie is in the same place as Waenceslaus. Ollie could be allowed to edit in the place again and removing his name is a bit harsh. Waenceslaus' socking got himself in the biggest trouble. There's no point in grave dancing, I may have reported him but I surely didn't enjoy it. If you want to take it out again, I won't object but I think there is a difference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Best as I can remember it seemed to me there were two different article alerts, one longer then the other. If I messed things up, sorry. Thanks for fixing it. While looking at that I noticed the removal of another editor (no idea about that case) and figured that a topic banned editor is best removed from the project as a courtesy. If other editors went through the list and contacted editors about WOP stuff, it might be annoying to Ollie to be contacted for example. I have no strong feelings either way, but he clearly is not currently part of the project. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if you were every going to get around to nominating the rest of the supercentenarians by year of death page so I took the plunge. The alerts page is a mess but whatever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? (concerning Talk SCW)
Hello. Yesterday you mentioned on User talk:Corriebertus#January 2016 that I recently made an uncivil comment on Syrian Civil War which has therefore been removed. Firstly, I did not edit on that page recently. Secondly, if you meant to indicate Talk:Syrian Civil War: I indeed commented there yesterday but that comment has not been removed. So, what is all this (to me) rather irritating and distracting and incorrect buzzing of yours about? Thirdly: if you want to imply that my posting there yesterday was impolite or disrespectful or anything of the sort, I'd like to see arguments for that. I believe I was just politely giving some opinions on what seemed to happen in that discussion section. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Complaint
I filed a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Legacypac’s persistent bullying. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
(No) focusing
Reacting on Legacypac’s statement on User talk:Corriebertus, 11Febr.2016:
Sir, I have not, as you put it, been ‘focusing’ on you (as I already told you 3Feb on ANI). I just try to do my work – as perhaps you do too.
While at work I came across an editor in 2014 who disagreed on an edit. I don’t mind disagreements, but I do mind how some Wiki editors react on disagreement. In disagreements, I’d say: just give your arguments why you are right and the opponent is wrong, and at first leave it to that. Arguments might simply win ‘the argument’, might they not?
But that editor in 2014 started to swear* “what the hell is wrong with the editor…”(16:12 o’clock), added a vague threat “if you make an inaccurate edit like this again I will report you”(16:25), and only then came up with a corroborating argument(16:49,about Australia bombing,ref 162).
His name was Legacypac (LP), and for the accumulation of a curse*, a vague threat, (and a lie,) I reported this business on ANI; it’s now in ANI archive 864.
Early 2016 while at work on Talk SCW, LP and two others posted comments that I considered off-topic. So, I politely stated that I saw them as off-topic, and asked IN GENERAL that people don’t post in discussions posts that don’t address the issue there under debate.
That polite posting of mine (Katie, 16Jan2016: “CB is being completely civil…”; Ched: “I think Katie’s points are well taken…”) was enough for LP to accuse me of ‘personal attack’ and impoliteness/disrespect, soon expanded with: ‘insult; disruptive; …(not) pursue this; stay off this talk page’, et cetera.
I feared some pattern of unpleasant, bullying, harassing behaviour of LP’s, and filed another complaint on AN (mistake – it should have been on ANI).
That discussion was closed 11Febr by Ched after 27 days: “At this point (and late date) there's not going to be any administrative action taken” – I presume the discussion was getting too complicated and was running too long.
My aim had been: at least some warning for you.
A considerable row of colleagues indeed expressed similar ‘bad experiences’ with you. It is not up to me to verify or judge those, and I’ll just only cite a few of them shortly: (16Jan)WV: “bullying”; (19Jan)LavaBaron: “aggressive … his first inclination is to [swing knives]”. (7Feb)Softlavender says: ‘LP simply has to learn to remain calm, collaborative, respectfull…’ — it sounds like friendly advice — perhaps you should take it to heart.
LP, you claim that “many editors found [CB’s] conduct as bad or worse”: that’s an exaggeration. I found only two such editors; one of them is vague, the other one I challenge.
Snow(2Feb) says: (also) CB is ‘digressing into polemics…fails to assume good faith’ and (therefore) he is “as, or more, … disruptive as LP”. So where did I ‘polemize’ and where not assume good faith? Where lies the line between debate and polemic anyway? Where did I disrupt what?
Ansh666(5Feb) says: because LP was conveying the general consensus on that discussed issue on Talk SCW, ‘it is clear to me why LP takes: “please, have the politeness not to .. (etc.)” as an attack; CB was impolite saying that’: (1) I don’t see you having ‘conveyed the general consensus’ there before 5Jan2016; (2) My general, polite remark: “please …”, is a request, no attack; if people choose to take it as an attack, that’s their choice, but that does not make the posting of it impolite. If people recognize that they have been impolite by “disturbing legitimate discussions of others”, then apparently the polite request was directed at them, but that does not make the posting impolite; (3) Feeling ‘attacked’ as subjective feeling does not automatically mean that you have been subject to a ’personal attack’ in the Wikipedia sense. Wiki PA’s are categorically forbidden. What I basically did in my edit of 5Jan2016,10:13, was criticize some edits of some colleagues. I can’t imagine politely criticizing edits (regardless whether in the end that criticism will hold ground or not) to be forbidden in Wikipedia – and no one in the recent ANI discussion has stated that it is.
(* You seem to object here against the term ‘swearing’ or ‘cursing’. So, how would you characterize such language? Course, bad, foul?) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
RFC
I added your wording. Would you be kind enough to just replace your comment with a vote? I don't mean any sort of disrespect, just that the RFC appears cluttered up a bit. Feel free to leave it as it is, I have zero business asking you this anyway lol. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the collaboration in trying to solve the dispute. I think its better to leave the discussion between us and put the questions at the bottom. Watch. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- TyFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate the collaboration in trying to solve the dispute. I think its better to leave the discussion between us and put the questions at the bottom. Watch. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Re-endorsement of Neelix G6 criterion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I've mentioned you in a thread relating to the deletion of Neelix redirects. Just seeking clarification and hopefully a reminder to people with the power that Neelix obvious deletes can be obviously deleted. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)]
The Hard Worker's Barnstar | |
Because I know that you are trying to help clean up an enormous mess and getting flak when you should be getting thanks. So thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for listing the Neelix redirects
Title says it: not a thankless job, then.
I did start going through and listing some of these myself, but my little laptop is very slow to edit on, and it's a pain to add all the listings. Seems like consensus is that any kind of bulk listing for deletion is a cure worse than the disease. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Neelix redirects
I find it's helpful to copy a section to my sandbox, save that, remove redlinks using the Visual editor more quickly, save and then copy back what's left over. I added progress bars so there's some fun to this (page 5 is already past 10%. If you have AWB, it's easy enough to do "Links on page" and get the count (Links on page (red links) is also helpful). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Just wanted to check back in but it seems to me like being able to actually load the page has resulted in this moving faster. Of course, it's a lot easier than the drafts one which is just SwisterTwister going alphabetically in large part lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Although we sometimes have different opinions at RfD, I am incredibly thankful for the hard work you do to clean up the Neelix redirects. Your tireless efforts to improve the redirects at Wikipedia are admirable, and your work ethic is truly inspiring. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
The Rfc about Elizabeth II is very much settled. That's why I was upset, when you showed up out of nowhere & deleted the efforts of a few editors. You gotta look before you leap :) GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be upset. I've got that page on my watchlist and the debate has been dragging on and on. When I found the top name was incorrect it seemed reasonable to trim until some sources can be provided. The info was just hidden not lost. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Should we do a dab?
Per one-horse, I'm wondering if we ought to do a disambiguation page to prevent this from being recreated as an inappropriate redirect... also pinging Softlavender and Rubbish computer . As for me, my first thought was one horse open sleigh... LOL! Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 00:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ya I'm OK with a DAB, though as long as Neelix is not editing I doubt it will be recreated. If you want to do that consider Horsepower as in a one horse engine. Defined as one-horse adjective "drawn by or using a single horse". informal small and insignificant. noun: one-horse town; plural noun: one-horse towns Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Responding to ping: I have no great interest either way; just wanted to ensure that the clearly incorrect redirect was deleted. Unless we have a large variety of "one-horse" or "one horse" articles on Wikipedia already, a dab page would be deprecated as a dicdef page and violate WP:NOTDIC. (By the way Legacypac I indented your post for proper nesting.) Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good point - it's really just a DicDef. I indented your post too :) Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-done the indentation on my above post to nest properly under the post I was replaying to. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good point - it's really just a DicDef. I indented your post too :) Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
2022 Summer Youth Olympics
For the record, I only created the redirect at 2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games as part of the process of trying to shut down a different editor who was repeatedly creating a premature and unsourced WP:CRYSTAL article at 2022 Summer Youth Olympics, and getting into revert wars whenever anybody tried to redirect it back to the main article on the Youth Olympics as a whole. I see you've listed that other redirect for deletion, for the same reason, as well, but it really has very little if anything to do with me, other than "administrator doing routine anti-vandalism admin tasks". Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
RfD thanks
Thanks once again for your hard work at RfD – I don't know how much you put up with the criticism. It must be very tempting sometimes to CSD the whole lot rather than bother to list them a few at RfD at all, I think people miss that point (non-regulars won't know so won't call it N-bashing; regulars will and should know not to.)
I've just CSD'd a lot of the redirects for "Cocktail [shaker] sort" and from this little laptop that took me about half an hour. I have no idea how many you CSD, but that is a job in itself, and you should be thanked for it. If a few get CSD'd instead of RfD'd, I'm not too worried about it, seems to me you must strike about the right balance or if anything be overcautious.
Redirects are less valuable now than they once were, because the search engine has got better. That's a good thing, but it means that sometimes it's OK to delete things when it wouldn't have been a few years ago. I'm not for deleting for the sake of it, but sometimes the search engine is better than a redirect. What we are essentially doing is building the encyclopaedia's index, and more than the search or Category: pages do, because an R is the first port of call – and can be considered harmful, sometimes.
Keep it up. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Some redirects
Care to check the redirects targeting Odor? You'll probably find a few humdingers there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This will help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ivanvector's link is very smelly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- It has a high degree of reek (compound). Its aroma is quite stenchful. I fully expected the posting of the link to be considered very odouriferous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- His redirects stink. I laughed out loud :) Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ivanvector's link is very smelly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Howdy. I don't think you're allowed to archive reports on yourself. I reverted your archive at the ER page. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ya I reverted that thank-you. The archive and edit buttons are too close together on my phone! Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar | |
You are quite resilient!!! Jilllyjo (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC) |
more tag teaming, disruption and harassment toward me from Winkelvi
Please have a look here [10] and also here [11] and weigh in with your opinion on the matter. Thank you. Jilllyjo (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- This constitutes canvassing in my opinion. Same goes for your comment on MaranoFan's TP. As I said, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Informing editors whom he does not want any interaction with, in regards to completely different matters than BTK is unacceptable. Leave him alone. --Ches (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ches, the solution is for WV to leave other editors alone! I'm tired of Admins protecting him when he sturs up trouble with false accusations. I have been very clear I want nothing to do with WV but that did not stop him from jumping on an 3RR thread I started. It appears to be open season on anyone WV does not like, and his victims get more abuse from Admins. How can you call out his victims for 'harrassment' when they are just standing up against the harrasser? Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- This constitutes canvassing in my opinion. Same goes for your comment on MaranoFan's TP. As I said, your behaviour is verging on harassment. Informing editors whom he does not want any interaction with, in regards to completely different matters than BTK is unacceptable. Leave him alone. --Ches (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)