User talk:Legend of 14

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)

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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)

The userpages said they did use the Article wizard template. Is there a placepage 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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)

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)

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 . 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)

?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

You clearly have a lot to learn here. Your competence is required or you are going to be blocked until it can be shown that you understand the guidelines and policies on here. The onus is on you to understand because a lot of your behavior is coming off as disruptive. – The Grid (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Grid Do not make any edits to my userpages, including my talk pages again. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Coordinates missing in Balinese regency

hey sir The coordinates are missing in Bali's regency of Indonesia such as Jembrana, Buleleng, and Klungkung can you help to added them in? Indonesianinfo2 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how do that. Sorry. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Aberdeen Group

You can't just close something like Talk:Aberdeen Group#Requested move 24 March 2025 with just two words, and "No action will be taken due to the lack of consensus."

Please explain why you disagree with the final comment, "I trust the closer can see that at least 3/4 of participants coalesced on Aberdeen Group plc after much back and forth."

Please explain why, if there is indeed no consensus, this should not move back to the status quo ante name of Abrdn, where it was prior to the move of 11:02, 13 March 2025.

@ 16:33, 4 March 2025 Kennethmac2000 moved page Abrdn to Aberdeen (company)

@ 22:29, 4 March 2025 Amakuru moved page Aberdeen (company) to Abrdn over redirect (rv undiscussed move per WP:RMUM; WP:NAMECHANGES needs to be analysed, and company name is still Abrdn)

@ 11:02, 13 March 2025 Dormskirk moved page Abrdn to Aberdeen group (per talk page)

Curiously, Dormskirk did not participate in that RM discussion, though they commented in both the sections above and below it.

HERE is the prior discussion from 4 March, when the company announced their latest name change, to 13 March, when the page was moved.

A company employee recognized that "Aberdeen group" was currently redirecting to an entirely separate page, and suggested that would leave "Aberdeen group plc" or possibly "Aberdeen group (Investment Company)" as potential article titles.

One editor boldly moves the page to a (company) disambiguation, and gets promptly reverted.

Another editor says We can remove the redirect from "Aberdeen group" if there is a consensus to go with that option. then waits less than 24 hours for a response, gets no response, and then just moves the page, while completely ignoring eighteen wikilinks from that title to the other topic. You're OK with that kind of page move becoming the basis of the status quo ante title? wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of the full move history. Given that Abrdn was not supported by the discussion, I'll move it to Aberdeen Group plc instead, per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. In the future please do not give conflicting recommendations. Wikipedia:Requested moves § Commenting on a requested move describes what to do if you change your mind in a discussion, and it wasn't followed by most participants here. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've closed three other discussions that were listed on Wikipedia:Closure requests today, and know what a complicated mess discussions have typically become by the time they land there. Taking the necessary time to sort them out is appreciated. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

wbm1058 For the record I am also content with the move to Aberdeen Group plc. As explained on the article talk page (in the section above) "I really don't have strong views on this." I was trying to obtain consensus but that consensus unravelled. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Physical Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation has been accepted

Physical Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Czarking0 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sex Pistols 1976 shows in Manchester (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Sex Pistols 1976 shows in Manchester 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.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

PRODs

Please do not dump prods or other nominations on articles that can be redirected to an obvious target, because that is WP:POINT. Just do a WP:BLAR on them.

Further, I should point out that Halsbury's Statutes, Current Law Statutes, Chitty's Statutes and Paterson's Practical Statutes, amongst other books, contain independent commentary amounting to significant coverage of many Acts of Parliament. Please do look at those books before claiming that an Act is not notable.

I should also point out that, because of the uncertainty created by the savings, a certain group of Acts usually resulted in a mountain of litigation, and endless periodical articles complaining about how awful those Acts were. So a search of law reports and legal periodicals would be necessary.

I can see that a certain pair of editors have been removing independent secondary sources from articles, and/or stuffing them with massive quantities of material from non-notable sources, but their edits don't reflect the better coverage available. James500 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Your message

I have read the message you placed on my talk page. I did not make any comments whatsoever about blind people in any edit summary. Please do not twist my words or put words into my mouth. James500 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You made derogatory comments about my edits that were based on the fact that you thought I didn't have eyes, or couldn't use those eyes to see. I'm not twisting anything.

Anyone with eyes can see the coverage satisfies GNG. (Special:Diff/1293924372) Legend of 14 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, my comments ("Revert vandalism") implied that your eyes worked perfectly well and that you were dishonestly telling lies about what you had seen. When I made those comments, I was under the impression that your edits were vandalism. I would like to withdraw that claim, which was made too hastily and on insufficient evidence. James500 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Your editing

Please stop placing Template:Notability on articles whose topics satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. The documentation for that template says "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources". Please do not redirect articles whose topics satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. Please perform an adequate search for sources before tagging or redirecting. Please do not base a decision to tag or redirect only on the basis of the sources cited in the article. You are tagging and redirecting too many exceptionally notable topics, and your editing is becoming disruptive, regardless of why you are doing it. The Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, for example, easily satisfy GNG and should have been tagged with Template:Sources exist (because they do) and, if you really cannot be bothered to add them, Template:Independent sources (because they are not in the article yet). James500 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't find sources, through a reasonable search. If you find that the sources do exist, you can remove the tag and add {{Refideas}} on the talk page. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at the relevant volumes of the relevant editions of Halsbury's Statutes, Current Law Statutes, Butterworth's Annotated Legislation Service (eg ALS vol 276), Halsbury's Laws of England, Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Blackstone's Criminal Practice, Stone's Justices Manual, Blackstone's Magistrates Court, or any of the other mountain of books on English criminal law, virtually all of which are going to include both Acts in some detail? Did you look at Google Books, Google Scholar or the Internet Archive? What did you look at? James500 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I searched on google, google books, google news, and google scholar. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources are not online: you need to go to a library to look at Halsbury's, Butterworth's etc. Dormskirk (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

About your behaviour

Please stop making vexatious bad faith nominations of articles that you know perfectly well satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I have just come across a whole series of acts of parliament which you have nominated for deletion without consulting the main legal texts. You should have read Halsbury's, Butterworth's etc before making such nominations. Dormskirk (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please slow down. You are creating a lot of work for people with greater knowledge and interest in these articles than you. You might find, along the way, that you learn something about the types of sources that belie these nominations, and learn from the opinions of those who pay attention to this class of AfD's.

Also, slapping a citation-needed tag on someone's comment may feel satisfying in the moment, but doing so after you have been shown to have overlooked sources is hardly a convincing move (see also WP:BLUDGEON).

Having said all that, it is troubling that you appear to be singling out articles created by @James500. While we should hesitate before accusing people of being vexatious or acting in bad faith (per WP:AGF) you should be aware that there is sanctionable conduct called WP:HOUNDING which might apply to rapid-fire AfD's that appear to be aimed at a single good-faith editor, even if you think their reading of notability is unreasonably permissive. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Oblivy: As far as I can tell, most of the articles he has tagged or nominated for AfD were not created by me. Even where the articles were created by me, he seemed to be tagging them because User:Hughbe98 had edited them. While there may be following, I do not think it is clearly directed at me, and I think it is more likely to be directed at Hugh. James500 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Your user page is on my watchlist (I talk-page messaged you at some point, not sure why) so I was getting watched page notices a lot recently in addition to the law deletion sorting list. Oblivy (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi - I’m not sure if you know, but we have a great adoption program that you might be interested in. If so, I’m happy to adopt you and/or enroll you into my adoption school; you are also free to contact any of the other adopters on that page too, if you wish. This message is just to let you know that this program exists; feel no pressure to take part. I know we’ve had our differences, but I am currently teaching an adoptee who I’d given multiple final warnings and was close to taking to WP:ANI - and after adopting them, things are going surprisingly, very well -s o I think this could help you a lot toward continuing to be a constructive editor. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

About templates

You are continuing to engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that is rising towards the level of WP:HARASSMENT. I have just seen you add Template:Unreferenced to the article Treason Act 1429 instead of adding a reference to the article. 11 sources were cited in the AfD on the article, so you were capable of adding one of those sources to the article. This is the latest incident in a pattern of behaviour where you attempt to systematically criticise every single aspect of Act of Parliament articles, in every way that you can think of, while doing nothing to actually improve the alleged defects of those articles. The next time you see an Act of Parliament article that does not have references, please add at least one reference to that article, instead of adding Template:Unreferenced. Please do not endlessly stuff articles full of needless maintenance templates in an attempt to either force me or others to do the maintenance for you, or to make the articles look stupid. James500 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding a single maintenance tag to an article is not stuffing it full of needless maintenance templates. Adding {{Unreferenced}} to an unreferenced article is not a personal attack. I've never cited a book and I was scared I get it wrong, and you know that I can't afford to make any mistakes, WP:ANI#Legend of 14. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No-one cares if you cite a book "incorrectly" (in scare quotes, because there is no such thing on Wikipedia), because Wikipedia does not have a house style: See WP:CITESTYLE, which says "nearly any consistent style may be used". I do not believe that anyone would try to make an issue out of that at ANI. James500 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone got mad at me for asking a question to someone else (the person I asked the question to wasn't even mad). Someone got mad at me for banning another user from my talk page, when all they did was call me incompetent and threaten me. People are looking at reasons to be mad at me. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

At this point, all I can say is that I am not going to get mad at you for any of those things, and that I am not looking for reasons to be mad. James500 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

If you do not know how to use a physical library and cite a non-internet reference you should entirely avoid statute articles. They require a somewhat high level of both legal and Wikipedia-editing expertise. Nobody would criticise you for not having that expertise, but you absolutely should not be stubbornly adding tags that reflect not an actual problem with the article but simply announce "this should be deleted as I don't have the expertise to improve it". MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I know how to use a physical library, where did that come from? Unreferenced is absolutely a problem with articles, and you do not have to be some sort of expert to identify and tag it. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Please re-read my last sentence. It describes the tag you are attempting to justify. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That is not what unreferenced means. Unreferenced means, "Someone please add references to this article." Legend of 14 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, mate

Looking above I can see that you are in a number of disputes currently. I suggest that you remove the ANI positng you have made, you can delete my reply too, that's fine, if no one else has commented yet. You are going down a path of trying to run parts of the Wiki, when you don't have enough experience to be telling other people what to do. I can't believe you've nomm'd the Treason Act for deletion.

It looks like there is a theme to these disputes too. I suggest you take some time out and review them, and see if you can figure out why so many people are unhappy with you. Then work out how you can edit without getting into these disputes. Good luck.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC).