Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 15 May 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Legacypac, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Our religion

its just a belief in our religion, that there would be a second coming of jesus christ. he will collect the people that have been faithful to him, and keeping his commandments. but being faithful comes with rewards and also with grief and hardship. its very hard to be a seventh day, the mocking and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.123.168 (talk • contribs)

Seventh-Day Adventist issues

Thanks for your edits on the project. I have restored a source from the Hollywood Reporter that you removed at Angus T. Jones . This is a reliable industry publication. Further, your edits to Seventh-Day Adventist-related articles suggest you may be connected in some way to that sect. That may make it difficult for you to be objective about such matters, and I encourage you to work with thers to ensure any changes are neutral and not based on personal beliefs. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Response: As good as the Hollywood Reporter may be, the reverted citation was engaged in easily demonstrated inaccurate speculation about a living person (pretty common around celebrities, but still wrong). I edit topics I know a lot about including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and have a very good understanding of what makes encyclopedic content. Further, Adventists are not a "sect". Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Wrong user?

Hi, Legacypac. Please see my talk page, you have mail.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your username

I'm kind of surprised nobody else has brought this up with you yet. Your name appears to violate Misplaced Pages'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 (pac being short for Pacific) 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 JadeDragon 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)

April 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You're at 3R with that photo. One more time and you'll be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rich... considering Drmies public attacks on me and others and his own multiple reverts. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's a warning. That you're at 3R is indisputable, and there's no invoking IAR here. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is absolutely well established IAR on reverts on the page. Go read the archives from yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I don't trust your reading: you see the word "ban" in the above 3RR notice, and "threat" where it says "warning", just like you saw the word "suspect" in an FBI page that didn't contain it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you really that blind? Go read the FBI page - transcript of the briefing. Listen to it too. Check any media site. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You still don't get it. This is an encyclopedia. It contains statements that ostensibly reveal facts. Those statements have references. The references verify the statements. Duh. This particular reference didn't verify this particular statement, which I'm sure you only realized after I reverted you and you finally actually read the linked page.

        Your "advice" ("go read the FBI page") is about as dumb as what pops up in AfD all the time: "just Google it". No. Include the proper source. And, by the way, preferably in print--not an audio file or a transcript of a briefing where someone might have misspoken. It's really not that hard: they teach this in the last section of Freshman Comp, when they tackle the research paper. Except that in this case the unverified shit you stick in these articles is read by thousands, if not millions of people. It is entirely possible that you mean well, I just don't see much evidence of it since you don't seem to listen and you can't admit you're wrong. And before you start accusing me of whatever again--did you see this? You could have done something like that, pointing to the specific, reliable source that did verify--but all you got is "Google it". Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

        • • No I said go read the linked FBI source. Are you still disputing that the FBI called them Suspects on the linked FBI page in print, and verbally and repeated around the world? Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Eh--they didn't name them "suspects" on that page, not at that time. So yes, I'm disputing that. Page looks completely different now, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Valid reasons for undoing another users' edits

This is not one. You don't take the age of an account into consideration when deciding whether or not to undo it. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit here may very well be correct, but your summary doesn't make your point very well. A classic Misplaced Pages principle is "comment on content, not people"... this is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that the user in question is not a "brand new user": Xe has over 1,000 edits... unless you're referring to xyr newness to this article, in which case you might want to read up on article ownership; furthermore, you failed to respond to the points Axxxion raised in xyr own edit summary. I don't feel very strongly either way about your edit, but you're far more likely to not get reverted yourself if you address the substance of what you restored, as opposed to the circumstances of your restoration. — PinkAmpers& 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was based on an error in where I clicked. I said sorry on his talk page right away. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages for calling Americans "irrational, wrongheaded buffoons." They're saying that the "no personal attacks" policy applies to the entire United States as a whole. That might sound like a joke, but they're serious. Are these people self-parody, or what?

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 unsolved 3x homicide =?=Tsarnaev bombers

Glad I saw your link to that 9/11/11 unsolved-triple-homicide before it got deleted; I did more research, went back to add facts & support, irritated yours deleted- should dispute if you have patience heh. Although a circumstantial association its compelling, fact based enough and can be further resourced.

All the junk they could have deleted like worthless page aboowwut canada's reaction (no relevance to anywhere or anyone).

Killing was on 9/11/11 (coincidentally to dzokrah's citizenship date), throats slashed, tamerlan seen referring to victim as best friend, fled to russia 6 months right after killing, weed spread on bodies (perhaps to look like drug relation...) dzhokar did smoke pot.

If i see you repost i'll log in and support it. can be a hassle with the power hungry tho.

-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.232.157 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the new section on the Bombings Talk page myself as I found an article about the 2011 kills started already. But thanks - The people who started the 2011 article did a great job building it very fast. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just in case you are unaware - I have mentioned your name in the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up

You're at three reverts on Boston Marathon bombings. I've come close to the line myself a few times on this article, and I haven't looked enough to see if I agree or disagree with your edits, but edit-warring blocks are pretty hard to get out of once you hit revert #4. — PinkAmpers& 18:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of the reverts were just removing new cite required tags and then putting in cites in another edit. Hardly edit warring. But thanks for the heads up. Also "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. If it was just a revert of convenience, so to speak, then it's probably not an issue. Still... watch yourself... with policies that can be enforced just by counting, people tend to get a bit unforgiving. And you raise a good point about that clause; however, while high-visibily certainly provides mitigation, it's worth noting that this isn't a featured article appearing on the main page, but rather an ITN item. — PinkAmpers& 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hi Legacy. I was wondering why you made this change. It was perfectly proper, in its prior form. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it looked better, but I've since read some policy on Wikidating that suggests 2012-13 is preferred on this platform. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the policy, not that it matters ... , because I think the extra digits impart zero additional information. And take up space. Which wastes reader time. Inconsequential in any one instances, but across the project it adds up. Thanks again. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personalization

Please avoid directing your comments to any specific editor, as you did at Talk:Boston Marathon bombings. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments are noted as a response to another editor's comments is a very active thread. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Let me explain how it works. A says something. B says, A I agree but do you think something. A is long gone never to return. C comes by but does not reply because the comment was not directed to them, and nothing gets done. That is the wrong way to do things. Instead the way it works, properly, is A says something, B says, yes but this is what I think. This leaves it open for anyone, A or C, to come by and participate in the discussion. Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page. The place for that is on that user's talk page and on the various disciplinary pages such as AN, but even then only if it is relevant to the discussion. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Apteva (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- I recognize that you have a few more edits, and therefore more experience, on wp than does Legacy. As a side note, however, I have my share of edits on wp ... more than you. So when you are lecturing another editor and say "Let me explain how it works" ... and "Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page" ... well, you are both being improperly bitey (very troubling to me -- especially given that you appear to aspire to be an admin one day), and ... in this instance ... incorrect. Talk pages, whether on articles or on userpages, are for talking. If one's comment is directed primarily at one editor, though in a conversation with more than one editor, it is both appropriate and far from uncommon to direct a comment at the specific editor. Where you arrived at your view of the world in this regard escapes me. Is it a guideline? If so, please point it out. Is it your experience? If so, your experience is more limited than mine, so perhaps that is why you are unaware of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOC, WP:NPA. It is consensus 101 to direct comments to the group, and about the subject, and not to the editor. Apteva (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- in a conversation that involves many editors, when one wishes to as part of that conversation engage another editor directly, that is completely appropriate. As I am doing here. That's not a violation of wp:fock or wp:npa. And I could say this on an article talk page that involved more than one editor the same way I can do it on an editor's talkpage discussion that involves more than one editor. There is no difference. Did you just make that up? And assert it to a less-well-traveled newbie as though it was policy? Seriously ... it is bad enough that you are taking an officious tone, and with a relative newbie, but to make up policy like that is unhelpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Here the topic is editor conduct. I did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. In consensus development, comments are never ever directed to an individual, and only to the group. The reasons for that are quite obvious, and have been explained above in the A, B, C example. FYI, another method, parliamentary procedure, which we do not use, always and solely directs all comments to the moderator, and never to any of the participants in the discussion. The reason, though, is identical. It does not work. Apteva (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider myself a wiki newbie. I've been editing since 2007 with this account, plus use other accounts across Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, and a special interest wiki project. I focus on quality over quantity on my edits. This is a hobby for me. As a full time real estate developer my job is to read and interpret policy across many organizations. Only the editor who made unbelievable or hard to understand comments made by that editor can explain themselves. Weird that instead of addressing your hard to understand comments you came to my talk page to explain how thinks work, like I am some sort of child. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not weird at all. That is what user talk pages are for. It is not a serious enough infraction that admin attention is required, but article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, and any discussion to or about an editor just does not belong there. Do editors violate that sometimes? Yes. Apteva (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva. Of course you did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. But, as I've indicated, you demonstrate here that you do not understand their application, which is quite another matter. And, as I said, it is completely appropriate to direct a comment to an editor on a talkpage, whether it be an article talkpage or an editor talkpage, in a discussion with more than one editor. Plus, I agree with Legacy's comments above, as to your editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks like this. a13ean (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The other editor insisted that it is plain fact humans and chimpanzees evolved from monkeys - I just noted he might be correct about himself without agreeing that his plain fact applies to myself :) Therefore I thoughtfully noted potential common ground on a hotly debated issue, which is pretty funny frankly  :) Did you not laugh? Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks such as that are rarely perceived a "funny". Apteva (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it an attack to agree with another editor's POV? Please go find someone else to harass Apteva. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Your recent editing history at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Martin451 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, revisions like replacing cn tags with references are fine. I'm just an active editor on this page. The person placing this notice has made a similar number of reverts on the same article - so if they want to pursue this they can expect to be blocked for edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at your Contributions, and search for the word undid. That is not replacing cn tags etc., it is replacing sections that are being discussed on the talk page, and against consensus. Compare them against my contributions, I am quite happy for an admin to look at these. I am warning you to think about your editing, not because I want you blocked.Martin451 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OR

You should be familiar with Misplaced Pages's original research policies. Knowingly putting unverified information into articles is a bad idea to begin with; the reasoning "look at him, it's clearly the same guy" is purely original research. Some guy (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The original contribution accurately reflected the source. That comment was only in a reversion note to someone who deleted the contribution without thought. The proper course of action by the person who deleted the contribution was to check if it was true, not delete directly but to verify and add a better source - which is exactly what I did myself. Thanks for your comment though, obviously we want to avoid OR.Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence in the article edits and talk page is you made an error in deleting a source but not the direct quotes from the source. Now you are threatening me with blocking over good faith well sourced (but unspecified by you) edits? Let's take it to arbitration right now. Admins are supposed to be helpful not go around putting unsubstantiated warnings on talk pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments

Hi Legacy. This is to make you aware that this edit you made has been reverted. While I understand your frustration, you generally can never remove comments from a discussion once they have been replied to because it throws the entire thread out-of-context. An alternative would be to strike your comments by using <s> at the beginning of text you want to remove, and </s> at the end. (Or, you can use <strike> at the beginning and </strike> at the end.) Here is an example of what it would look like: This is what text looks like when you strike it. In the situation with the thread you removed your comments from, the appropriate way of handling it would've been to either (1) just make a final comment that states your intention of ending your participation, or (2) simply not commenting in the thread any more. But simply removing all your comments obviously would be very confusing to readers because they would have no idea who or what the other editors are replying to. Thanks.--76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the other comments were not replies, but attacks and tangents, but ya, ok. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper closes

Hi again Legacy. You improperly snow-closed two move proposals on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio with this edit and then this edit. They have been reverted. First, you cannot close a proposal if you have participated in it. Second, you cannot snow-close a proposal that clearly is not at the point of snow; Alternative Proposal 2 has three supports and four opposes. If you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor review it. For the record, I do not like either of the proposals you closed, but it's important that !votes are never shut down improperly. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76.189.109.155 I was just about to go to your talk page to discuss. Your count in the edit summary and above is different than mine and I see you reverted a SNOW close by as well. By my count:

• Alternate Proposal (1) (which I did not try to close) is at Proposer + 2 Support and 5 Oppose (including me)
• Alternate Proposal 2 has Proposer weakly suggesting a title, one "Support tentatively" and one "Support a title similar to the one above"; (neither of which are really Supports) and now 6 Opposes (I had put comment but had not voted - just fixed that. So without anyone really arguing for this title... I tried to SNOW Close it.
• Alternative proposal 3 is based on 3 Suspects not 3 Victims. 0 supporters and 5 Opposes (including me) This was SNOW closed by and unclosed by IP 76.
• Alternative proposal 4 has the proposer posting Support (incorrectly) and than 4 Opposes and one editor who wants to keep the current title (so another Oppose) and I commented on the keep current title comment but did not vote or express an opinion on the proposal itself. I tried to SNOW this one.

It seems very clear that none of these Alternative Proposals (especially 2-4) have a Snowballs chance in hell of passing, esp since so many editors support the Main proposal. Do you differ? As I never even commented on Proposal 4 (only commenting on a counterproposal) am I OK to close it boldly? The other one I had commented negatively on the proposal but not voted (until now). Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Legacy. Look... you and I, and anyone else who has actively participated in the various move proposals cannot, should not, and must not close any of the proposals. And we especially must never close a proposal that we have !voted in or even opined in. It's highly inappropriate, a violation of involved, and would hurt our credibility. I agree that most or all of the alternate proposals stand little or no chance of being approved, but editors like us, who have clearly stated our positions, are the last ones who should be closing them. And if the proposals you closed stand no chance, then there's nothing to worry about anyway. ;) I agree that alt proposal 3 is the one where WP:SNOW clearly applies, but we would need a totally uninvolved admin or editor to close it; someone who has not materially participated in any of the current move proposals. Finally, editors must be extremely careful when invoking WP:SNOW. It's a very high standard. By the way, nominators of a proposal do count as a support !vote. I really appreciate your interest and involvement in the move proposals. Hopefully, the matter will be resolved soon. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One other quick point. You made a Comment in alt proposal 2, which you then changed today to Comment & Oppose with this edit. But it should be one or the other, not both. Comment is only to be used when you are not !voting. So the way to do it is... when you make a comment only, but subsequently decide you want to !vote, you should either simply place your !vote at the bottom of the thread and leave the original Comment above, or just strike Comment part in the original post and add Oppose before it.
It would look like this: Oppose Comment Then, time stamp the post again with five tildes instead of the normal four (which will simply add the current date and time) to let readers know when you updated your post. So you can go there now and strike the Comment part. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Just trying to move this along to get the article title to something that makes sense. Not very experienced with closing discussions, just read the guidelines on how and copied what did. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I understand your impatience; the current awful title needs to be changed. Unfortunately, move proposals on high-notability articles take time. Don't worry, things will work out fine. And if a particular proposal truly doesn't stand a chance, then it doesn't really matter if it's closed or not. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation brought up on ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yet_another_questionable_BLP_edit_by_Legacypac. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For repeatedly violating WP:BLP despite being warned, I am hereby banning you from making any edits about living people for a year per WP:BLPBAN. Salvio 14:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not see the discussion here where my edit is fully explained. The way the line read was a possible BLP violation against DeJesus. The new sentence should make things much clearer. Also, I have not even seen the discussion above yet- so going there now. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the above!!!. You are banned from "making any edits about living people". This edit contravenes the ban: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy - lay off. I made that edit before seeing this post. Do you disagree with the edit or are you just trying to be difficult.Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the edit is beside the point - it appeared to have been made in violation of the ban. As you can see from my post above, I wondered whether you'd not seen the notification - hence "Read the above". If you've not done so, I suggest you make clear at WP:ANI what happened. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• That discussion is now closed. There is no pressing need to act on the diff pointed out above, even though one could argue that it technically was a violation: Legacypac knows the score now. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Legacypac, for the sake of redundancy, allow me to quote from WP:BLP, halfway down the page: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories". More explicitly: talk pages are included. I know you like to comment on talk page and participate in discussion, so this is just a word to the wise: be careful please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crazy

If you disagree with me, drop the ad hominem attacks and discuss the issue on the TALK page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you are not crazy, but your POV on corporate structure is a little crazy. From what I can see, every other editor is disagreeing with your POV. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2 or 3 people who disagreed are wrong. Have you considered that? You should because they and you are indeed wrong. Not only are shareholders generally not owners in America, they are not owners of German, French, and Japanese corporations. This is a general article on corporations, so we should consider these corporations too, right? The extent to which you believe something that is false is something you will need to come to terms with. Sigiheri (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. -- TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been invited, so let's see your hard cold logic, with cites.Sigiheri (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet case opened concerning you.

I have opened a sock puppet case concerning you here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacypac. You comments would be welcome.Martin451 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a false allegation, pure and simple. That many other editors have an issue with User:HiLo48's posts is easy to document. I've replied, and when no proof is found, perhaps you will come back and say you are sorry. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That SPI, right now, looks to be heading nowhere, but Legacypac, no more of this. Whether you mention HiLo by name or not doesn't matter to me--it's time to stop concerning yourself with him and, if you wish to be taken seriously as a Misplaced Pages editor, it's time to stop misrepresenting things: your reading of that ANI thread is hardly a good one. Please consider this a final warning for harassment. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Legacy would've been fine with that comment had he not included the last sentence. This feud between Legacy and HiLo needs to end now. Both have behaved poorly. They need to cease initiating any contact with or about the other. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)