User talk:Legend of 14

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

E-Laws moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to E-Laws. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CoconutOctopus talk 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:1999 Ontario general election

Template:1999 Ontario general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2003 Ontario general election

Template:2003 Ontario general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2011 Ontario general election

Template:2011 Ontario general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2018 Ontario general election

Template:2018 Ontario general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2007 Ontario general election

Template:2007 Ontario general election has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kathleen Wynne quick links

Template:Kathleen Wynne quick links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bob Rae quick links

Template:Bob Rae quick links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Doug Ford quick links

Template:Doug Ford quick links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Index of Lagos-related articles has been accepted

Index of Lagos-related articles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be snapping up ill considered trifles! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G13 nominations

Hello, please stop tagging user sandboxes that do not use the AfC submission or article wizard templates, as they are not eligible for G13 deletion. I've declined several of your nominations for this reason, as they do not meet the WP:G13 criteria. If these templates have not been added, a user space draft can essentially remain indefinitely. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The userpages said they did use the Article wizard template. Is there a ~~place~~page that shows the article wizard placeholder, so I can compare it for future reference? @Hey man im josh: Legend of 14 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About ths MfDs: G13 isn't good for bringing up directly as the rationale of a deletion nomination in a full deletion process, because it's an abstracted and mechanical criterion that is totally opaque as to the supposed underlying deletion-worthy problem with the page. It's good in the speedy deletion track but isn't functional in the full discussion track. Perhaps simply let admins apply G13 mechanically as they do and don't concern yourself with G13. That's what everyone else does pretty much. It doesn't seem like there's anything to be gained by making manual G13 interventions. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose sanctions against me go to ANI. Otherwise, I will not impose arbitrary rules on the CSD criteria I will and won't apply. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nominations in general

What do you expect will be the benefit to Wikipedia from deleting useless drafts? What harm are they doing by simply being 39,535 entries, or some other large number of entries, in a list of names of pages that nobody looks at? Nominating them for deletion requires a small but non-zero amount of volunteer time that the editors at MFD could otherwise be doing reviewing drafts or improving references in articles or gnoming categories or whatever work they do in Wikipedia, or working on their day jobs. How will getting rid of these useless stubs benefit the encyclopedia overall? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've found that most abandoned user drafts either are valuable for the encyclopedia or could be valuable to the encyclopedia if they are transferred to people with the right skill set. I think getting rid of user drafts without potential, from inactive users, especially with the large backlog right now, makes it easier to find and deal with the drafts with potential. Legend of 14 (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nick Guggemos (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Moritoriko was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Nothing in this article shows that he is a notable athlete let alone that there is sourcing for any of the claims of notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nick Guggemos and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Moritoriko (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Legend of 14! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Moritoriko (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Legend of 14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Move warring, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

?

I removed a 2018 bot message from an article talk, edit summary "dated". You found that too little. Understand. I should have said (as I normally do) "dated bot message", or what would you suggest. You reverted without an edit summary, interesting. - I came to the page to look at the result of the move request, and found that old useless thing in the way of finding it faster. Sorry. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE prohibits removing comments from talk pages. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please archive - I would not remove user comments, but tell me for whom this bot message will serve a function in an archive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from WP:DTR, you may have overlooked that the notice Gerda deleted contains this sentence: "Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals." Her action and edit summary seem wholly appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dated is not an appropriate edit summary for removing an entire section. Your unsolicited advice about templates is not accepted. Have a good day. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History merging

Please re-read Wp:History merging and stop requesting articles be history merged into drafts. That doesn't make sense, and the reverse usually doesn't make sense either as it would cause WP:Parallel histories. Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]