User talk:Legacypac

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)

I am aware of PACs generally, and love Colbert's PAC :) I doubt anyone will confuse me for them and if they do, they can change their name since I came first :) Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 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)

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)

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)

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)

How's blacklisting those titles going on? Mhhossein (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2015 (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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Please repost my page, I need some more time to work on it.. Thank you Ok. Thanks, will do. Just curious, as I am new to wikipedia, what needs to be added in order for the page not to be deleted. My page is about a small magazine which we publish and distribute for free, not trying to advertise anything... Any ideas? 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)

DYK for Kayla Mueller

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 28 March 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)

The title is awful - zero Google hits for it - and the topic is covered better in other more extensive articles. Don't know what a DYK review is. I decided to be bold and do not plan to undo my efforts to improve coverage of the Syrian Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, we took care of it. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 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 _contribs^talk 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)

Lots of the ones I've seen listed should be speedied, but I see people are voting to keep some of them, e.g. Slutting. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 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)

good catch, I meant to archive the declined speedy but hit the link to the RfD on the White Dog. The other was an item I withdrew I think. Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 12 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)

Thank-you that means a lot. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 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)

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)

Let me see what I can do. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 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 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)

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 and unblocked. 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)

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)

For what? Successfully deleting a lot of crap? Many editors oppose efforts by SPAs to stop me. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 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 [1] 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)

Very strange indeed. I find the article interesting. Good work. I mean it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 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)

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)

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)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi?

Would you like your talk- and userpage semi'd for a while? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

Easier to catch the vandals if they can post here. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People

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)

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)

You can vote too - hope that looks ok :) Legacypac (talk) 08:43, 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)]

Thank-you kindly :) Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 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)

List of the oldest living state leaders

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)

The Elizabeth II debate is over. So, that's no longer a concern. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 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)

OK, sounds like no stampede to do a dab, but if someone gets the bit in their teeth again, let me know! Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 06:01, 3 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)

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 [2] and also here [3] 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)

Definitely agree with Legacypac above.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for being nice and helpful must only be sarcasm. He even added it to his user page! Gave me a good laugh. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you two guys Legacypac and MaranoFan for your kind support. Sadly the Billy the Kid article failed GA review for a second time. We are gearing up for #3! deja vu Jilllyjo (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Glenfield (company)

Did you mean to create the article as well as renaming it? You moved it out of draftspace so I wasn't sure if you meant to rename it in draftspace or do more than that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it checks out as notable with a long history. Needed to be renamed to current name. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix

Hi there; I know that you have spent some time identifying Neelix nonsense, and I have spent a fair bit of time deleting it. I have just done some arithmetic. Neelix claims on his userpage to have created over 60,000 redirects (!!!). They are listed on his talk page; I have found that something over 95% are deletable. Allowing for checking some articles, I find that I can process one hundred every hour. Assuming that I do this regularly for three hours every day, I can clear the lot in just under 48 weeks!!!!! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazing... Wankstains is my favorite so far. I still think nuking the lot of them would be a better use of time, letting responsible people recreate the ones that are needed. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it appears that the community, or at least those fractions of it who have commented, do not.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to inform the nuking, I started on summarizing the various discussions we've had at RFD here. I didn't get very many days in, but at least you can see that certain types of his redirects pretty much always get deleted after a discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that ("nuking the lot of them would be a better use of time, letting responsible people recreate the ones that are needed") would have been a better option. But what's done is done. Thanks for all the work you have done on them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving drafts into AFC

If you're going to move old drafts into the AFC queue (which I can't say I approve of; it's very hard to see it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the recently-reestablished consensus against routine deletion of non-AFC stale drafts), please at least direct comments about them toward the author of the draft, not to yourself. {{subst:AFC draft|author's username}} is the proper incantation. —Cryptic 23:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand about comments. There is no consensus against deletion of non-AFC stale drafts. There is plenty of policy that allows and facilitates such cleanup. There is a project to review them that is resulting in many deleted and some promoted. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I should have said speedy, deletion, sorry. (WT:CSD#G13 Drafts for any onlookers.) About comments, I mean stuff like [4], which you misdirected User:KylieTastic into posting on your talk page instead of User:Agravert's with this edit. In this particular case, it probably wouldn't have made a difference - if Agravert didn't respond to the MFD, he's not going to for an AFC decline. Once in a while someone has the email-me-when-someone-edits-my-talkpage option turned on, though, so even a user who's been inactive for a long time can be brought back to the project by a message like this. We see it all the time immediately after a draft actually does get deleted. —Cryptic 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using G13 on userspace drafts. I'm not intending to misdirect anyone to post anywhere, I'm using the provided submit button that clearly says "don't change anything, hit save" or something like that. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you're deliberately hiding these messages from the user for which they're intended, just that the method you're using has that effect. The big blue submit-this-draft button is intended for the draft's author, the code backing it assumes that it's the author that pushes it, and the code backing AFC declines and accepts and comments assumes that it was the author that pushed it. That's why you're continuously getting and removing semi-automated "Your draft has been declined" messages that aren't intended for you - I can't imagine that you had any doubt whether these drafts would be accepted as-is. When you're submitting a draft on behalf of someone else, you have to make sure that the u= parameter of {{AFC submission}} is the draft's author. {tl|AFC draft}} does this for you; the newbie-friendly submission does not. —Cryptic 09:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Since you're still doing this, I have no choice but to assume you are deliberately trying to avoid notifying these drafts' authors and get these eventually speedied without proper scrutiny. Do it again and I will block you from editing. —Cryptic 01:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

[5] "Per editor request" where? —Cryptic 21:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No answer? —Cryptic 11:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the computer gibberish you posted. The feedback comes to the page anyway so the user is notified. As for your more recent question, which I missed earlier. Evidently you can't read requests in English at the top of the page submitted. Do you know of a process for review and comment on drafts in Wikipedia other then AfC? Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving unsuitable drafts to mainspace

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your opinion, but kindly do not threaten me with blocking for enacting the logical conclusion of a Keep vote. At least in mainspace it has a chance someone will bring it up to standard, but in the userspace of a long departed user it will sit and rot. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above and regarding User:Akeefe98/Joseph Summer, "kept at MfD" is not adaquate justification for moving a userspace draft to article space. During the MfD you stated your opinion as "Not seeing any notability on this BLP." Yet you decided to move this to article space on 2 April. This is disruptive and needs to stop. If it was not for all your good content work elsewhere I would have blocked you already. I have moved it back to userspace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Re [[6]]

You said The page to be moved to this name is User:Ajscott27/James Maki. (link to perform this move) Reason for move: this name is not mentioned at the current target as far as I can see

Actually he did. See: . His subsequent films of 1930 impressed Shiro Kido enough to invite Ozu on a trip to a hot spring. In his early works Ozu used the pseudonym "James Maki" for his screenwriting.[5] His film Young Miss, with an all-star cast, was the first time he used the penname James Maki

I think your proposed move is probably still valid but I wanted you to see this to see if it changed your opinion on how this should be handled.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't doubt he used the name, but a real person trumps a penname as the primary topic me thinks. Legacypac (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Stale Draft Moves

Are you even reading the stale drafts before you moving them? I've found three that qualify for speedy deletion. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read them. It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What? That's clearly not the intent of policy. You should not move pages to a different namespace in order to get them speedily deleted, that just breaks the entire purpose of A7 as an article-only criterion. I think it's in very bad faith to take it upon yourself, without any sort of community consensus, to bring articles to mainspace in order to when you know they can be speedy deleted them. That sounds like very disruptive work and damages the encyclopedia. Appable (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful what you accuse me of. If I think it is a viable topic and don't have a CSD to apply, there is no problem with moving a stale draft to mainspace. Let it sink or swim there based on what the new page reviewers do with it. I did not try to speedy delete anything I moved to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote that badly. Regardless, it's a very bad idea to send stale drafts to mainspace if they'll be likely deleted there. The point of draftspace is it provides a safe place for articles in development - if a draft is stale for too long and the contributor is gone, just get it removed in draftspace. Otherwise, if it's probably not ready for publication, please don't move it in.

As a side note, two of them also had WP:CSD#G11 apply. G11 is a general criteria and applies to all pages, everywhere. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 12:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Forking a Wikipedia page is not a copyright violation

Please note that copying a Wikipedia article to another page to work on it is not a copyright violation. Wikipedia is freely licensed under CC-BY-SA, which allows for such copying so long as the attribution is preserved (which it would be were this draft to be merged back into mainspace upon completion). Therefore content forks such as Draft:List of state highways in Utah are not eligible for deletion under CSD G12. Thank you for your understanding. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, short term, but this one is coming up on the stale draft list. Why not edit mainspace? Off to MfD Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a large overhaul of the page to convert a table to templates. Too big to do in one sitting, but editing it in chunks breaks the table. Admittedly I'd forgotten I was working on it, but deleting it loses what's been done already for no real benefit. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool. Make your point at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The point was made and validated. Will you accept that your CSD-tagging and MfD deletion rationales are frequently in error? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduction listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reintroduction. Since you had some involvement with the Reintroduction redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Housekeeping speedy rv

Can you expand on your edit summary here? VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What the heck were you thinking when you moved it out of draft space? In draft it has some hope of being worked on - which is the idea of keep vote. Now you've reburied it in the userspace of a long departed one hit wonder again. Don't try to wipe out the evidence of your disruption or make it harder to find. Anyway, since you pulled that trick, backnto MfD. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Staledraft, consensus, and active users

Re this, there was a recent MfD on that subpage that resulted in consensus to keep. In addition the editor has been active in the last couple of months so it shouldn't be redirected based on WP:STALEDRAFT even in the absence of the MfD. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Stop stalking my edits - its getting to be harassment. 2. What the heck is an IP with 4 edit total doing closing an MfD? 3. I did not notice the MfD discussion, but even though it happened 4. "Anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit drafts" [7] and my edit is quite reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• That page has been on my watchlist sinse Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Admission_to_an_event_or_establishment. While I maintain that no harm was coming from it remaining live in userspace, I support the redirect, Legacypac redirecting old pages to locations of superior development is a good thing. Slightly odd that the old mainspace title redirects to a different title. Redundancy in mainspace. As a redirect, it is easily found through WhatLinksHere at the target, an excellent tool to use when trying to improve a mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The question about the IP is an interesting one indeed. SQL^{Query me!} 07:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Best guess is an accidentally logged out editor. Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Legacypac, heres a little furry friend for the Claire of the Sea Light article

Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm QEDK. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Legacypac that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Call me a "troll" once more and I'll be forced to take you to ANI. QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)