Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 24 March 2019

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Draft submission help

Hello! I'm writing to you because you recently helped me improve the article about Molecular Layer Deposition for submission. I have already made the changes you suggested, but now I see that the box with the button to submit the draft is gone. What should I do now? Is it alreaddy submitted?

References

1. "Draft:Molecular Layer Deposition", Misplaced Pages, 2019-02-18, retrieved 2019-02-18

Request on 08:23:09, 25 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nonoxb

• Nonoxb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Norrsken Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you elaborate on the reasons why my draft has been denied ? After the first review I added more external references as requested, so there are now references to 6 well-known (I think) websites that talk about the foundation that I would like to create an article about : TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Local, Dagens Nyheter, Nordic Capital (although this one should probably not be considered as independent since they are investors of the foundation) and Financial Times. Is it that you don't consider these websistes to be well-known enough ? Thank you in advance for your answer.

Nonoxb (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Homer Sutton

I'm all for getting these drafts moved into mainspace, but can we get them a bit more complete first? bd2412 T 17:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was tagged for afc. I think the tagger User:FloridaArmy will expand it - maybe he will comment. It's a decent stub anyway. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As stubs go, it could be worse. bd2412 T 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Frederick Barnes (architect)

HI As requested I have re-worked the article to try and make it "less plagiarised". If there is still an issue please could you copy the relevant passage(s) for a third attempt. Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Accusations and aspersions

Hi Legacypac. I think it might be helpful for you if you appreciated that your industrial powered old draft processing is startling to some people. I am comfortable with what you do. Highly appreciative actually. You should welcome the occasional review, but of course a review to be a review needs actual examples not aspersions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I want people to review moved pages - that is the whole point of bringing them forward. Some can be improved to mainspace while others turn out to be redundent or sometimes there just are not enough sources to support an article when intensive searching is done. Sometimes a merge is appropriate. Regardless of the outcome, absolutely review and try to improve.

Far less useful is starting various threads with false claims about what the people actually doing something useful are doing and misrepresenting policies while linking to the policy or guideline. That is just weird and unproductive. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, User:Legacypac - I agree that the tagging of the leftover pages is useful. The pages are not always being moved. Very often Legacypac is simply Submitting them. Other reviewers, including myself, are moving them to draft space. Many of them are duplicates or partial duplicates of existing articles. They became that way typically because the editor created the page in user space, and then put it into article space. In such cases, the proper procedure is to decline the draft. If the draft is the same as or a subset of the article, the draft can be redirected to the article. If the draft is significantly different from the article, I note both on the draft and on the talk page of the article that a comparison is in order. I am not sure that this is always helpful, because I am sometimes not sure that anyone is watching the article talk page, but that is what I can do, short of actually comparing them myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

One of the objections to what Legacypac is doing is the idea that the editors will come back and wonder where their toy drafts went. Well, if they come back, which is unlikely, and know how to review a history, they can find out, and can recover the original if it was either overwritten or G13 deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In a few cases, I have found that the author of the tagged page is still off-and-on active. In those cases, I have either removed the AFC-submit template, or declined the draft to let the author deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the page move out of userspace leaves a redirect behind, with the name of the mover attached, it is easy enough for the slow returning user to follow up to work out what happened. I think the redirect should always be left behind for this purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course the redirects are left behind. The main exception is a history merge where the userspace page disappears but then the user copy pasted the info into mainspace themselves so they know where it is exactly. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Hyman

Hello Legacypac More sources have been added, e.g. Fox News clips, could you please take another look at Draft:Kelly Hyman Thank you.Josephintechnicolor (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Anchor Hanover Group

Thank you. But why was it turned down twice? If I was a new editor I would have given up. Rathfelder (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Promotional feel to the page. I accepted it because the organization is notable and the rest can be fixed. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Portals

Thank you for the thank.

Personally, I'm flabbergasted by the whole opposition thing.

Portals are an evolving type of page. An experiment. At the rate computer (including server) speeds are increasing, which will make more component types feasible, I doubt portals will be recognizable in even 3 years.

The question is what can we make these things do that everybody will find useful?

That's really what we are trying to do over at the portals department: transcend what has come before.

Slideshows, for example, are a feature we couldn't put into articles, because they won't print out right. If we are to have slideshows, or any other new fangled technology we haven't dreamed up yet, there would need to be a type of page for such technologies to be displayed upon.

That's how I view portals. Navigation aids that are evolving with each foray into the future of the possible.

Without innovative areas, Misplaced Pages will fall behind the mainstream, and will become a victim of leapfrogging.

Right now, Misplaced Pages is the head leap-frog, and has left all other encyclopedias far behind.

I hope to help to keep it that way.

But, we should not grow complacent. To stay in the lead, we'll need to innovate.

And we can't really do that in a non-disruptive way in article space. Which makes portal space perfect for this type of endeavor.

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   20:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Just stop. On one side you have long said we can't delete because there is no policy or guideline about what is an appropriate scope. On the other you create over 500 new portals after a large segment of the community voted to shut the whole portal space down. Sure, the vote did not pass but mainly because the "community portal" (which is not a portal really) got into the mix. Looking at some of the portals you created recently and projecting what that means - like 723 District of India Portals if you keep going after quickly creating several dozen District of India portals - is very concerning. You need to help create some guidelines first, run them past the Village Pump (not just the Portal Project members) and then apply them before creating even one new portal. The guidelines can't allow the indiscriminate creation of portals. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not true; even without the fringe departments under the portal space umbrella, the consensus was in favor of portals. It's in print – sitting there to be recounted if necessary. More importantly, is that the vast majority of arguments provided to delete portals were of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions variety. That too, can be easily checked, via random sampling.    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You say it is very concerning, but you don't say what the concern is. The guidelines state what is an acceptable scope for a portal. It's in black and white.

But, you didn't comment on innovation and the future of web page design on Misplaced Pages. How will that progress if not with projects like this? Just curious what your take on that angle is.

We've got portals down to a single-page each (for the new ones). The old design took 150,000 pages for about 1500 portals (about 100 pages each). Comments?    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist - I had not known that you had created 500 of these silly portals because creating portals is fun. I agree with User:Legacypac that these portals are being created indiscriminately. I would add that your reasons why we need to use portals as experimentation for the future of web sites is marketing buzzspeak. If I didn't know that you were a volunteer, I would think that you were selling some sort of electronic snake oil. Slow down and discuss whether we need portals and what sort of experimentation they are for, or what current need they serve. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist - I had not known that you had created 500 of these silly portals because creating portals is fun. I agree with User:Legacypac that these portals are being created indiscriminately. I would add that your reasons why we need to use portals as experimentation for the future of web sites is marketing buzzspeak. If I didn't know that you were a volunteer, I would think that you were selling some sort of electronic snake oil. Slow down and discuss whether we need portals and what sort of experimentation they are for, or what current need they serve. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

We already discussed whether there is a need for portals, and the community decided "yes". We don't need to re-enact that debate again.

They are an experiment/endeavor in automation. I thought that was obvious. The current need they serve is an alternative navigation approach to search engines. We went over these issues in the RfC last Spring.

What is silly about portals? Please explain.

What is your preoccupation with this "fun" notion of yours? Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes).

How is portal creation indiscriminate? Each portal is on a subtopic of knowledge. That's what encyclopedias are for, to cover subjects. Portals are navigation aids to help navigate subjects on Misplaced Pages. These portals do not break the WP:INDISCRIMINATE rule. So, I don't follow your argument, nor do I understand it, as it isn't based on Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. You haven't pointed out how these portals are indiscriminate, nor have you explained why your conception of indiscriminate is bad. What is "indiscriminate" about these portals, and what is bad about it? If it pertains to scope, that is already covered in the portals guideline. The portals aren't breaking any rule. The only argument I'm picking up from you guys is "I don't like it".    — The Transhumanist   03:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is widespead opposition to Portals but the RFC broke down in removing them partly because of the Community Portal (which is not a portal) and partly with your campaign of soliciting votes to keep them especially on the Community Portal - which was dishonest since no one was seeking to delete that page. Portals create burden without benefit. When we tried to delete some of the dumbest ones you said there was no guidelines and to wait, then you wemt off and created hundreds of new Portals after a whole lot of editors said they wanted the whole space deleted. I feel you manipulated other editors about this whole Portal project and have gone against the community. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(By the way, you may be thinking of Portal:Current Events). There are several things wrong with your analysis.

1) Where are your numbers? There were around 450 votes: about 150 supporting removal and about 300 opposing removal of portals. Of the oppose votes, about 50 mentioned Current Events, and some of those differentiated between Current Events and other portals while opposing the deletion of both. Without the Current Events votes, the consensus was still heavily in favor of keeping portals. The RfC showed that there is even more widespread support for portals than there is opposition.

2) The proposal was very clear, and stated "all portals". The proposer couldn't remove that from the proposal without affecting the context of the answers already posted.

3) There was no soliciting of votes. Deletion policy requires that deletion notices be placed on the pages to be deleted. The violation was holding a discussion without placing such notices. You and others were apparently trying to ramrod the proposal through without notifying the community-at-large, especially the readership of portals. Bad joo joo.

4) You stated that "portals create burden without benefit". Prove it. The community defied that stance in the RfC and stated the benefit of portals to them. The many benefits of portals were expounded upon. You have simply ignored them.

5) I've reread my posts in the MfDs, and nowhere can I find the thing you said I said. In most of them, I posted

• Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Misplaced Pages:Portal guidelines#Article selection.

And..

• Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows).

In the MfDs on portals, you may be confusing me with Certes or Pbsouthwood. Once the scope threshhold was tracked down, I went by that. Concerning the creation of new portals, since the community's decision was to keep portals (that is, allow them to exist), then it follows that more can be created.

6) Your feeling is quite an accusation. Back it up with evidence, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you point-by-point.    — The Transhumanist   06:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You should stop creating portals on random topics. No one agreed we needed thousands more. Current events can be moved to Misplaced Pages space. It's not at all like the other portals. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts

User:Legacypac, User:The Transhumanist - First, we need to take this discussion to a neutral public space. Village Pump - Proposals is fine if that is where we want to discuss it. I hope that you, TTH, are willing to slow down and explain and listen to explanations. It appears that you are in a hurry to create hundreds of portals for some reason. At the rate you are going, the most likely result will be a topic-ban on creating portals, in which case whatever you are trying to do (and haven't explained) will be lost. Second, you say that the portals are an experiment in navigation or in automation. If they are an experiment, then a small community of test users should be involved, and there should be a plan for what is being tested and how. I have not seen any description of how the portals are being used as an experiment, and so they are not an effective experiment. Third, you say that, without innovation, Misplaced Pages will fall behind the mainstream. That implies that there is some sort of technical competition. Who will Misplaced Pages fall behind, and how? What is it that Misplaced Pages is trying to innovate? I may be stuck in the 2000s decade, but I thought that Misplaced Pages was an experiment in the large-scale crowd-sourced organization of human knowledge, and that any experiments in presenting that knowledge were secondary, and that Misplaced Pages could take advantage of cutting-edge presentation technologies as they are proven. I may comment more later, but I think that I have asked a few questions about the nature of the proposed experiment that should be addressed. We may have already created so many new portals that any focused sort of experimentation is not feasible. What exactly is the focus of the experiment? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was using the term "experiment" in a colloquial sense, in the same context that you mentioned Misplaced Pages as an experiment above. For more info on the development of new portal features, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Question About Portals as Experiments.    — The Transhumanist   11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

For this silly banter I held with you. You know, post this brain freeze discussion with you, I realised that you are the same Legacypac who helps out at the AfC desk. Was waiting to let the heat of the moment pass before apologising to you. Sorry, and please do reach out for any support I can provide in the future. Warmly, Lourdes 10:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Trey Yingst

This reporter seems notable to me. Thoughts? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NJOURNALIST is hard to pass because while a reporter might be well known generally people are not writing about the reporter. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Poynter article looks like very substantial coverage to me. And there's lots of coverage of his hiring by Fox News. As well as some other coverage of him and his reporting? Doesn't.he satisfy GNG? The formatting of the refs could be better.. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Nifty Copper Mine

Content you added to and removed from the above redirect appears to have been copied from elsewhere online. I have revision-deleted the material. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I pasted in material I found on very old userpage that has been in Misplaced Pages for many years, and immediately replaced the content with a redirect, noting it was unverified. How the heck did you even find something that was in mainspace for about 5 secs before I deleted it User:Diannaa ? Legacypac (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a bot that helps locate these! The prose was previously published at https://www.metalsx.com.au/copper/ and http://mininglink.com.au/site/nifty. If you can locate the old userpage, I will do some revision deletion there as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Whippetman 123/Nifty Copper Mine just trash the whole page. If you ran that bot through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts I bet you would trash 1/3rd to 1/2 of the pages. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I know right? but who's got the time, when there's 70 reports per day to be assessed at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. Many but not all abandoned drafts are eligible for G13 deletion, so at least some of them will get purged by and by. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Userspace drafts are not subject to G13 we have to manually sort and try to U5&/orG11 or redirect most of them. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a new rule that userspace drafts with an AFC submission template qualify for G13 if they meet the other criteria. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if they are blank. A reshuffling of existing criteria. The only substantive change was we can ax them in 6 months instead of a year. I redrafted G13 recently because it was a tortured gramatical mess.Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

?? The policy doesn't say they have to be blank. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Awe yes. The recent change was to which CSD we tag some blank pages under. Generally a userspace page only gets the AfC Submission template when someone pushes the blue button like here User:Bradhill07/Clarke's_Point and AfC than actions the page. It is possible for a AfCH script user or anyone to manually add Template:submit but few users know to do that. So practically the vast majority of junk in userspace is not G13 eligible. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears editor legacypac is making edits solely in a effort to appear like he is making some important contribution.Bobspen (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have time....

Glad to see others finally seeing the problem.... I tried to bring a related point up at the community portal a while ago.... he uses the community portal as his personal project banner....see this exchange Misplaced Pages talk:Community portal/Archive 19#Time to get rid of the portal spam. He's been good not to duck up all the portals I have made like Portal:Canada ... and all its sub portals.--Moxy (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Seem a few people have gone portal mad Portal:Food/Related portals.--Moxy (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Moxy that list excludes Portal:Spaghetti that is up for deletion. Also misses all the Cuisine of X country portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just resubmitted Barbee ( Singer ) Article. Thanks for all the help. Musicxpertz (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

They would have had to copy from here. I didn't even know that was up. Is that a notable website? If not how can we take it down from there?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicxpertz (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No they are a Misplaced Pages mirror, usually pulling content from Misplaced Pages and republishing it. I'll approve the page now. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Gem Harvest

Hi there; I don't understand your rejection of Draft:Gem Harvest. No article on that subject already exists, just a list article that has space to mention its existence and not much more than that. Could you clarify at the help desk (or here)? AJD (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

See helpdesk Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Portals to US Counties

I had been being sarcastic when I asked whether the portals for 723 Indian districts would be accompanied by portals for approximately 3000 counties in the United States. Sometimes sarcasm should be taken seriously, I guess. It is my understanding that districts in India are roughly equivalent to counties in the United States, second-level administrative subdivisions of a large federal republic. Any differences are probably no greater than the differences between counties in different states, since counties vary between states. It has been noted that US counties are smaller than Indian districts, because there are more of them, and India is an even more populous country than the United States.

How about getting things really confused with Portal:Montgomery County and Portal:Orange County? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

When I spotted the Indian districts I did not know about the US counties. When I found the counties I thought of you. I believe they are pretty similar (I know more about the US situation though) and yes, 1 billion odd Indians in 723 Districts compared to a third the population in 3000+ counties! In my own province we have 162 municipalities grouped into 27 regional districts. Between 1 and 2 of these entities MIGHT justify a portal. Maybe Metro Vancouver but only if Portal:Vancouver folded into it. Oh and funny you mention Montgomery County since that was were I went to University. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My point about Montgomery County is that there are 18 of them in the United States (as well as in Australia and Wales). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I learned something new from you. I only knew about Maryland. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox cleared

Hey there!

I have deleted the sandbox article for review. Now there's only one draft. Amar1574 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

NSFW template

About this edit - this is no history to preserve attribution for, and there are no incoming links from mainspace, or transclusions, that this preserves. Would you be willing to revert yourself? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ya, if it were a big deal I should use DRV Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, note that the template was moved in August to UFW, so all of the attribution for revisions before then is already kept there --DannyS712 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes moved but the redirect from the move was removed. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a redirect when Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:NSFW took place, and consensus was to delete. The redirect isn't needed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No it was not a redirect. The page had been vandalised by a sockpuppet to say it was depreciated, which was not true, it was renamed. Not a normal redirect Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying --DannyS712 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Itel Mobile

I have rejected the sandbox. The author is being a nuisance in submitting the sandbox while also waiting for a Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. Strikes me as a notable topic actually. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tagging unsubmitted drafts as test pages - technically that's wrong, but yeah, whatever

Hi Legacypac,

• Draft:Whobacon (Youtuber)
• Draft:Čmar
• Draft:Imthiyas Beegum

Technically these should wait until they meet the WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion.
I also think you should talk to the draft article creators about the whole Misplaced Pages thing before you nominate them for speedy deletion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I regularly tag blank Drafts as test pages, even when they are quite new, and never had a CSD rejected. These were up for G13 anyway, but granting a refund option would be dumb on a blank page. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

noinclude

Just in case you did not know: when you apply a speedy tag to a page which is transcluded, you must clothe it with <nowiki></nowiki>. You placed a naked speedy tag on User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe which caused two other pages of that user to pop up at CAT:CSD.

But apart from that, keep up your good work: the number of times I have written on this page is a good indication of how much I approve of your actions! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. How would I even know it was transludeded? I just twinkled that old page. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Marianna Yarovskaya

I went ahead and accepted the draft. As the unsalting admin noted, it can still be taken to a third AFD, but they and I would both support Keep. I haven't looked to see whether there is an ipso facto guideline for Oscar nominations. If it is taken to AFD a third time, I will push for an ipso facto guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rachael Kungu

Hey Legacypac, I saw your comment on my draft for the female Ugandan DJ Rachael. She may not appear notable but she was among the first female disc jockeys in Uganda and that is the reason I put it so. Though she did not have enough references to pass her off as notable but I was thinking she is. --Pktrisha (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Pktrisha this may be an edge case. AfC is optional and does not guarentee no challenge. You can move it yourself and see how it goes. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on additions to NPOV test filter?

Hi Legacypac,

Over on testwiki I'm making a tracking filter for promotional / tone-issue drafts. This is the list of words I've identified as common and problematic in drafts which have tone issues or are promotional. Can you think of any additions that need making / removals?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to edit that list without breaking it so: CEO, independent label, award winning, block-chain, fin tech, fintech, upcoming, Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, sure, I'll add those. The newest diff is the list in regex that I'll use to test before making a filter on testwiki. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Reason of declination

My created page Star Suvarna has been declined right now. What is the reason behind that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Draft:Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As the notice says, the title already exists. This title has a long history of problems. I'm not going to approve it. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is said, subject is already exist here. If it is existed here, then I had no interest to create another page for same topic. Star Suvarna page is missing on wikipedia. Instead a separate page, it is redirected to Star India page. I want to create a specific page for that reason. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct the page exists but is now a redirect. You can turn it into an article yourself. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are no particular page for Star Suvarna. That's why created the page. Recently, the page is redirected to Star India page. Nothing details for the particular channel. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct there is already a page, but it has no content. It is just a redirect. You can change that. Misplaced Pages is the site anyone can edit. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

All provided information are correct here. In fact, no pages are in Misplaced Pages. If page is not approved, I have no problem. Thank you. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I am new here. Don't know how to delete the redirected link. It would be better, u may remove this redirected link and approve this page for every people. ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I blanked the redirect on Star Suvarna. You can copy your own draft there now. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please improve the page. I have copied all information from previous page to new one, but unable to create the table for a television channel. Kindly create the table please please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In this page, a table has existed where launch date, language, sister channels are mentioned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Draft:Star_Suvarna

Please move this table here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Another page, created by me, is in draft also, need clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Draft:Zee_Keralam ZaxoteZ (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No can do. Zee_Keralam is create protected after multiple creations and deletions. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Again declination. Ok post the link, where I will copy the articles. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Different situation. The page can only be created by an Administrator now. You need to go to WP:DRV and convince the Admins that your Draft should be accepted. I'm not an Admin yet. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply, move the page from draft to a simple page.

One another request, please add a Star Suvarna logo on that page. Without logo, page is looking not good. Logo you will find on Internet simply. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Last request, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Zee_Ganga_(TV_Channel) Please add a table here for the television channel, where launch date, logo, language, sister channels are mentioned. ZaxoteZ (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Few days back, u approved Star Suvarna page after all checking. But now someone has given a notice for page delegation. What is happening here? & what is wrong in this page? kindly don't delete the page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Star_Suvarna ZaxoteZ (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:08:10, 11 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Scott8905

• Scott8905 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Executive Office for United States Attorneys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks so much for your advice and reconsideration of our content. I will make the updates as you suggested. I'm guessing I will have to resubmit one more time so that page can become active, correct? Also, when adding the redirects, I'm guessing I will need to wait until the page is live before redirecting the content to our EOUSA page.

Scott8905 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Scott8905 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the title exists at Executive Office for United States Attorneys. You can just edit that page directly. Replace the #REDIRECT with your properly referenced and attributed content. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over the redirect and it takes you to the EOUSA section of the US Attorney's page. There is no actual page anywhere, unless I'm missing something. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I would think my page would need to be resubmitted and accepted to get out of draft status. I could then apply the redirects to both the US Attorney page and the Department of Justice pages to EOUSA's. Scott8905 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow this link Executive Office for United States Attorneys which will redirect you. Scroll up and click on the redirected from link at the top. Now you can edit the page. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dholera Special Investment Region

Dear Legacypac,

You rejected an afc request on Draft:Dholera Special Investment Region because of less notability but i want you to know that if you read any of the references properly, you will get to know that they are not just mentions but complete coverages on this project only. I urge you to revert your action and publish this article to mainspace. RAY (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What I will do is resubmit it for a second opinion. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:The Ministry of Truth

I'm not sure speedy deletion is the best way to deal with these. UninvitedCompany 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

129 edits, all to userspace, all in 2006. Not a contributor. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I listed these at MFD. UninvitedCompany 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cross reference User_talk:RHaworth#Userbox_deletions I'm not going to raise the possible (could be inadvertent) IBAN violation except to log it here in case it continues. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:xaosflux see my previous post Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelical Christianity

@Legacypac: I dare you to look at the most ugly portal on Misplaced Pages. Portal:Evangelical Christianity, you think the portals by The Transhumanist are bad this portal created by someone else is even worse, it's ugly.Catfurball (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Some strange link selection going on there. You going to nominate it for deletion? Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jaiden Animations AFC

Hi, you recently rejected the Jaiden Animations draft b/c it is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion" but you did not provide any reasoning as to why aside from the comment that it was "deleted via discussion twice in the last year." Just a minor correction. There have been 2 discussions on the Jaiden article (one was in the last year , but one was not ). That being said, these are older discussions and since then more reliable & credible sources discussing Jaiden Animations have published coverage/articles on/about her. I don't want past discussions to dictate this much more up-to-date version of the article. I want to know why this article is now "not sufficiently notable for inclusion". What current reason do you have for rejecting the article, because I believe the article would likely survive an AFD as it currently stands either as a keep or a weak keep. Soulbust (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

AfC is an optional process. You need to go WP:DRV if you want to create this page Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Not X3s

Hi Legacypac -- Please bear in mind that at least some of the thousand new portals not created by The Transhumanist have had substantial non-automated work in addition to using The Transhumanist's script or similar as a start point. (My unfinished experiment in semi-automation, Portal:Scottish islands for one.) You could always list 'em by creator -- I don't think it's possible to do a half-passable job on more than a handful. (I spent about 3 weeks on the above, and it is far from completed.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean 1 to 2 minutes a portal is not enough to do a good job? Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I never joined the rebooted portals project because I thought some of their methods were ... well, barking mad is the phrase that comes to mind, and that's before I realised quite how many of these useless messes had been created. I wish they were able to focus on things that might actually make creating & maintaining proper portals easier, but that's a hard problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove redirect link

Hi, in Misplaced Pages, currently Zee Punjabi page is redirected to Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal page, which is a punjabi language news channel by Zee Network in India. Zee Network has already confirmed that they are going to launch a new regional entertainment channel for Punjab, named Zee Punjabi in coming April. So, It would be better if redirect link from Zee Punjabi to Zee Punjab Haryana Himachal could be removed, because both are different channels and very soon, it will be needed for a separate page for Zee Punjabi channel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Zee_Punjabi ZaxoteZ (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can remove the redirect and build a page on the title. You don't need me to do it. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am unable to remove. That's why asking you. Please remove it. ZaxoteZ (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the redirect for now. Go draft User:ZadoteZ Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add the table, where channel launch date, language, logo, sister channels are mentioned. I know you have no idea about Zee Ganga channel. You can only add, launch year 2013, language Bhojpuri, country India on the table. I will put all other information about channel. Please add here. And if possible, issue the page as Zee Ganga only or edit the redirect link from Zee Entertainment page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Zee_Ganga_(TV_Channel) ZaxoteZ (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not your personal editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok sorry, just add the table only please ZaxoteZ (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do, exactly?

Regarding this: I'm not asking for sanctions, I asked for an administrator to step in and intercede in a discussion that appeared to be devolving in to (mostly one-sided) personal attacks that had nothing to do with the topic. I tried to step in myself, and didn't make a dent. So do I just have to scroll past an ever-growing pile of obnoxious behavior in order to read the actual response from another editor at the bottom of the thread? I'm seriously asking here. Nblund 04:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You will never get any action because someone said scold. Nothing is done when people tell others to F off. Don't worry about it. Fae deserves a telling off for being a hypocrite in that thread and EEng is being pretty darn polite about it. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the history between these two editors, but I shouldn't have to read it. Article talk pages aren't the place to tell people off. Nblund 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well it just is not actionable. EEng is trying to be funny amd Fae is being pushy. Both par for the course for them. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just between you and me, Lpac, unless the thread itself was opened as obvious trolling it's probably better to just let people comment awhile before considering closing -- others may see something you don't. EEng 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I reopened it for ya both. Perhaps a discussion of Fae's participation in that discussion is in order. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Drama Llama a gendered pronoun User:EEng? I found my male llama were more drama oriented then the girls. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Then the girls did what? EEng 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar

Since you're here, Nblund, let me bring you up to speed. Fae has a long, long history of accusing other editors of nasty motives simply because they don't subscribe to Fae's militant queerness. It's hard to find a discussion involving them that's not peppered with his accusations of bad faith and homo-, trans-, xeno-, and whatever other phobias, and this has been going on for a decade. I've only had three interactions with Fae that I can recall, and every time it's that they've got their hair on fire over some mistaken pronoun or a word choice which offends their delicate sensibilities. I'm not the only editor sick and tired of it. EEng 20:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I corrected your post EEng, to keep you out of trouble. I've never tangled with Fae but I've seen enough to know anyone can be accused of being anti gender something regardless of what one's actual beliefs are. The key is to say something Fae disagrees with. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a close call! You can see in my post that I tried really hard, but I guess I'm still just a horrible person. EEng 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng, I totally appreciate where you're coming from. From my perspective it, though, it looked like you were being a dick jerk vondruke in that exchange. I saw one editor toss out some mildly misogynistic* name-calling and then acting like the offended party was crazy for taking note of it. I can totally see how that appearance could have been misleading here, but there's also not a huge difference between looking just looking like a boor and actually being one. I still would appreciate if I didn't have to look at stuff that appeared uncivil even if it is totally warranted. For my part: I promise to pursue the much ANI-approved route of telling everyone to "fuck off" instead of actually reporting stuff to ANI next time around. *= Seriously. Poll some of the women in your life if you don't believe me, it's a thing Nblund 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no fan of telling people to engage in sexual activity on Misplaced Pages. I appreciate more creative ways to express frustration. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No, what you should do is WP:assume good faith on the part of other participants (something Fae has a very hard time doing) and if you're puzzled by what's happening look into it. In the discussion we're discussing, my first post contained a link which, if you'd followed it, would have made clear to you why everyone's so pissed off at Fae; I suggest you do that now. EEng 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I can empathize with your frustration, but there's still no special dispensation for attacking really obnoxious editors, and I'm sure there was nothing in that link that justified your rudeness toward me. It's not reasonable to expect other editors to go digging in to a clusterfuck RfC in order to find some justification for your personal attack, and ultimately there's no context that would make it okay. As a practical matter even being the good guy in a flame war is going to make people think less of you, feed drama, and discourage uninvolved editors from joining the conversation. In any case, I don't hold a grudge and I'll stay out next time. Unwatching. Nblund 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the hierarchy of personal attacks, ascribing hidden dark motives to other editors, without evidence, ranks way worse than telling a scold who does that that they're being a scold who does that. No one expects you to go digging into the clusterfuck RfC – unless you plan to open an ANI thread, in which case you really do need to take the time to find out what's going on. EEng 17:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually...

There inclusion on Draft:List of Irish Academy Award winners and nominees means they are Irish. If you click on the link to their name you will be able to see they are in fact Irish. Schmitz123 (talk)

That is circular logic. They are on the list because they are on the list. I don't doubt the linked articles support the person's Irishness but this page needs to support their inclusion. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I added sources. Is it good enough now? Schmitz123 (talk)

Hi Legacypac. I write not in criticism but in positive spirit. You have rejected my entry Draft:Alan Crossman as a 'run-of-the-mill engineer'. I need to challenge you on that since I wouldn't have bothered writing about him in the first place. I would just point out three things. First that he has risen from quite humble academic beginnings to become President of one of the world's top professional bodies of structural engineering with members in over 100 countries around the world. The Institution of Structural Engineers may not be a household name but it should be since its members design some of the world's most important buildings, bridges and infrastructure. That is why I write about it as I do. Second I would also point out that Crossman is an external examiner at Dublin Institute of Technology - not bad for a man with his academic start up. Third Crossman rose to become Chief engineer of a major engineering company and has designed some significant works. So in summary I would be pleased if you could reconsider your opinion or perhaps refer to another reviewer for a second opinion? Thank you for reading this. Ian.Kirkland76 Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AfC is an optional process. You can move the page to mainspace yourself and defend it if someone seeks deletion. Legacypac (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Asaba-Ase

Hi! Redirect deleted, over to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Legacypac,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Misplaced Pages pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
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) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please clean up your 'bundle'

All your MFD redirects are making a mess of the main mfd page - I'm hoping you haven't left this work half done? — xaosflux 03:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm batching them. I'm deleting two or three at a time. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Edit summaries

Please stop leaving disparaging edit summaries, such as stating that I "failed to read the nomination" (diff) when the error was all yours. I read the nomination in entirety. You then immediately corrected your error, while not mentioning in your subsequent edit summary that the error was yours (diff). Seriously, this is quite poor form. At least add a note in your edit summary stating what actually occurred. Thanks in advance for your consideration. North America 04:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not see the issue in the text until after I restored the CSD. Error in copy pastkng the title. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Multiple !votes are allowed for bundled deletion nominations. Otherwise, people would have to !vote for all at once in only one manner or another (e.g. keep or delete). This makes it easy to state "delete all" for those who, for example, dislike portals, but is an inferior method that discourages objective analysis of each separate page. As such, please cease ordering me how to !vote in deletion discussions. See WP:TRAINWRECK for additional information. North America 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

See also: WP:MULTIAFD, where it states, "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." North America 19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate – What is that, some kind of riddle? EEng 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It's a riddle without an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on Portal criteria?

Hi Legacypac

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on the criteria for creating/deleting/retaining portals?

I have written a very rough first draft at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, just to kick things off.

At User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal I set out why I think it would be helpful if a small group of editors of differing views worked together to draft an RFC which could establish a broad community consensus on which portals should exist and which should not. This is one of 4 invites, through which I hope to establish group of 5 editors to collaborate on ths one task.

Please can you reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal, so that others can see your response?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Community portal

If your interested pls have a gander at Misplaced Pages talk:Community portal#New layout that removes portals.--Moxy (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deprod: Soundtrack Your Brand

Hello, I have deprodded Soundtrack Your Brand because I believe this edit by the article's creator was a good faith attempt to contest deletion. I would not object to you or anyone nominating this article at WP:AFD. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri 13:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sent to AFD. Fails NCORP. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks, for once we've got something in common. Portal:Evangelical Christianity to me is ugly and looks like Pepe Le Pew painted blue.

Catfurball (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the ugliest and poorly designed I've seen. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you just denied the page I submitted Prague Raptors I did the changes needed as they were not enough sources proving notability, which changed and I added the references as well. Would you mind give it another look and let me know if it looks alright?, if so is it possible to approve it? and if not what can I do better? Sorry for bothering you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesole (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Raptors

Hi,

I understand and I made the changes. They are on reliable sources as local newspapers (newspapers online) and also sportsgazette UK, which were added in the references. Draft:Prague_Raptors_Football_Club It is a team that started a bit over a year ago and 2018 was their first league, therefore they just started to have notability in local newspapers. I read your message, and I did what it takes in order to have it approved. Can you please let me know if this is not enough?, if we need extra sources or if this is already ok?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesole (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Your ping

(a) What part of the page do you want copyedited? (b) While I realize there's been some vexing conflict (though I have no idea how it started) I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of a page on the project that's "invitation only". EEng 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just the part I wrote as a draft RFC based on the German model. You have a way of making things very clear and concise. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You flatter me. But what about this idea of an invitation-only page? I'm not sure I like it. I'm pretty sure Sandy McC knows to stay away by now. EEng 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No one will kick you off man. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about myself. My point is that it's not a good precedent. But I guess tempers have been running high. EEng 04:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm not interested in the discussion so I'm unwatching; ping me if you need me again. EEng 05:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is your sig broken?

I couldn’t help but notice that your userpage link was missing a bracket on your recent bird portal mfd vote so I thought I’d bring the issue to your attention. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sinai Akiba Academy

Hello. You'd approved the article Sinai Akiba Academy a few days ago and then other reviewers deleted it entirely without any valid reasons. (They claim copyright issues but not one word was copied from an outside website.) Can you let me know what I need to do to get the article approved again? Thanks. Egw1119 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) I provided a reply as part of an ongoing conversation about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested that representatives of the school no longer leave messages at my talk page. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no recollection of this topic. If the material was copied from the school's website we can't use it. If the school only goes to grade 8 it is not notable. Sorry Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Anne Hyde (Tonetti)

Hey @Legacypac: Thank you for taking the time to review this page & leave a kind message! I am currently working to retool the page, as well as add necessary information to fit the WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO! RegardsIcedCovfefe (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rhiannon Hughes

A non-obvious case, as you implied, because there is no special notability guideline for rowers. However, does not satisfy general notability (which is hard for athletes except in major sports, where they don't need GNG anyway), and did not compete in the Olympics, and (this is my judgment) did not place in the world championship or national championship (competing in the world championship is good, but not good enough). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

• User:DannyS712/communicator
• User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
• User:DannyS712/Undo
• User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
• User:DannyS712/Readonly
• User:DannyS712/Redirectify
• User:DannyS712/Section-strike

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD

Why the !#$%? are we making AfD easier and automated when it is so incredibly difficult to save an article. This is a tilted playing field designed to overwhelm the protectors of valuable[REDACTED] content. And it is working all too well. Creating an AfD should be thoughtful process, including a WP:BEFORE, but that is NEVER enforced. If you are going to automate, then you should force a NOM to show the efforts they took to do a search before they are allowed to submit such a nomination. And they should be penalized for bad faith nominations when sources they claim are missing, are later found. Trackinfo (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for second opinion on Draft:We Love MMA

Hello,

sorry for addressing you directly. My article draft got rejected and I could not comprehend the rejector's reasoning behind it. They suggested I ask for a second opinion, but my requests are always going unanswered, with all the others around being answered. I saw you answering another request nearby, so maybe you could have a look?

This is the link to the request: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#13:13:18,_19_March_2019_review_of_submission_by_Zeno_Gantner

Your input would be very much appreciated.

--zeno (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

AN/I (March 2019)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal Issues 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, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals

No, it's not in incorrect close. You withdrew AND at the same time requested to leave it running for 7 days. Moreover, there were no additional votes between your withdrawal and my close. You can't have the cake and eat it, choosing the pick the narrative (withdraw vs. keep) that you find most convenient to your own storyline. I also find that your reasoning imposed a false dichotomy. An admin can and will close AfDs and MfDs in projects that they are member of (e.g. an admin who is a member of Military History project does not preclude themselves from closing discussions related to battles as long as they don't participate in the discussion). You stated that an admin in Portals project cannot close related discussion due to my perceived involvement. I did not participate in any recent portal discussion (recent = 8+ months) nor made any changes to portal mainspace (3+ years) up until today. If you still consider that as "involved", I implore you to go to DRV and get a second opinion on this matter. OhanaUnited 04:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever. Your talkpage is littered with Portals updates. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)