User talk:Legacypac

Draft submission help

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

References

Notice :battleground mentality

Be a sweety and dial down the fake outrage and made up accusations against editors you disagree with because otherwise you are going to get a timeout from editing. In fact, if you took a time out from the drama boards, that would probably do you a world of good. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be awsome if several admins would stop copy pasting the same bs allegations all over the site. They make a fake allegation then cite the false allegation as a problem. If a non-admin did that they would be blocked. Then there is the admin that basically called me a racist at ANi and has never backed down, instead attacking me at ArbComm and again at ANi. That really burns my fuse because I'm the most non-racist, globally accepting person around. I'm just going about a cleanup job which a very small minority of editors don't like. Thanks for the comments though, I'm trying to be careful about what I say. Feel free to share your wisdom with the several admins who are posting unbelievable statements far and wide. If you have a spine go block another admin for obvious disruption instead of threatening this lowly editor. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care what your justification to yourself is for this behaviour. You just need to stop. Focus on the edits and not the editor. The next time you start up the aspersions and false allegations you will have plenty of time to review your behaviour without being distracted by being able to edit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Questions, again

Single Navbox Portals

How do I know by looking at a recently created portal whether it was created from a single navbox? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a tracking category for that now. It's in Category:Portals

Taratill123456

Who is Taratill123456? They have created two portals that have been nominated for deletion, and that is all. They aren't autoconfirmed, and can't create an article, but they can create a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No idea. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Old drafts - should I be deleting within a time limit

I am slightly confused. Why submit stale drafts from userspace to AFC rather than simply asking the author to delete them Draft:Examinership?

Should I be deleting old drafts within some time limit? Thanks. FrankFlanagan (talk)

User:FrankFlanagan, User:Legacypac - There already is an article on Examinership, which is based on a different version of FF's draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you (FF) verify that all of the information in the draft was also in the article before you requested that the article be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts if the page looks like it is within striking distance of being a suitable article I tend to submit it to AfC for another set of eyes, or myself to use the tools to check the title, copyvio etc. Sometimes it is in mainspace already and sometimes not. If it is already in mainspace, tagging as existing and deleting G13 or redirecting eliminates an WP:UP#COPY Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding portal pages to MfD nominations opened by others

Hi Legacypac

Please stop adding pages onto existing MFD nominations. There are some limited situations where it may be appropriate, but you have been adding far too many.

The worst I have seen was a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, where I nominated one portal. You added 52 extra portals, which made an utter nonsense of my nomination rationale, and has led to a sprawling debate which has unsurprisingly not been closed after 25 days. That is monumental waste of editors' time; in its own way, it just as disruptive as the spam creation of portals.

The most recent that I am aware of is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Los Angeles glorified navbox microportals, where you added[1] 6 extra pages.

Two of those are already under discussion at another MFD:

• Portal:Century City, Los Angeles at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small towns in California Portals
• Portal:Granada Hills, Los Angeles also at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small towns in California Portals

Having the same pages discussed simultaneously at two XfDs is blatant forum-shopping. It is made even worse by fact that you didn't even tag them for the second discussion, so anyone looking at those portal pages would be unaware that they were being discussed elsewhere.

You also added 4 other pages:

• Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles
• Portal:Downtown Los Angeles
• Portal:South Los Angeles
• Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

The last of those, Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles had multiple manuals edits and so did not meet the criteria which the nomination described as being shared by all the pages nominated.

The nomination is for portals with a scope of less than 16 pages, but the other 3 pages which you added exceed that scope:

• Portal:South Los Angeles has 50–100 pages within its scope
• Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles has 26–30 pages within its scope
• Portal:Downtown Los Angeles has 41–40 pages within its scope

All of those facts were available to you when you added to them to the nomination, including the scope figures, because I have created tracking categories for scope: see Category:Automated portals with 31–40 articles in article list and 13 other cross-liked tracking categories.

This is highly disruptive conduct, because apart from the forum-shopping, you turned a carefully-checked and described nomination into a festival of falsehoods. That led to my signature appearing below a bunch of untruths, which tarnishes my good name. I have participated in thousands of XFDs over 13 years, taking great care to be precise and accurate, and to promptly and explicitly acknowledge and correct any errors. I am appalled that you have associated my name with untruths.

This has to stop now. You have already been the subject of multiple threads at ANI, where I have not supported sanctions against you ... but this after latest episode, I would strongly support sanctions for any repetition. In the meantime, I am pinging @Thryduulf, who has been a major critic, because while I disagree with most of Thryduulf's approach, they have a right to know about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at any of BHG's links (I don't have time right now), but if what they say is correct (and her general opinion on portal-related matters it seems very unlikely not to be) then I fully endorse her description of this as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thryduulf. I spent about an hour making that nomination, which is way more time than the portalspammer (@The Transhumanist) spent creating those microportals, because I always take a lot of care to do due diligence and ensure that my XFD nominations are accurate. That is why I have objected so strongly to your unevidenced allegations against me.

I have just spent another hour checking Legacypac's misplaced additions, and documenting the problems. The cleanup of the portalspam is far too much work already, without having time wasted by this sort of cavalier disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I will nominate them separately then. I was very very clear that I made the additions and set them off as seperate from the original nom so there would be no confusion. The obvious commonalities are the scope. BHG has also been dragged to ANi over portals and as for Thruduulf you are in a class of your own for obstructiin and false accusations around Portals. Drag me to ANi, fail to get trackion but uninvolved editors give you grief, and keep ≥citing the origional thread as some proof there are vague problems with me. You are a major reason we cN't sppedy delete all this junk in one go. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, you say The obvious commonalities are the scope. But Portal:South Los Angeles has 64 articles in its scope, whereas the nomination was explicitly for portals with less than 16 articles in scope.

And there's just no excuse for the forum-shopping --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. Please contact me in the future before adding portals to my MfDs. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

MFD for Portal:Palace of Versailles

Hi Legacypac

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palace of Versailles, a nomination which you created earlier today, using WP:TWINKLE.

That portal is built on a navbox which isn't about the Palace of Versailles at all. It's a about a Japanese band.

This is visible on the face of the portal, both in the selected article list and in the display of the template at the bottom. I spotted it in seconds after opening the portal, and I don't know how anyone else could have missed it.

That obviously reinforces my assessment of @The Transhumanist's portal creations as reckless spam, especially since TTH created the redirect from Template:Palace of Versailles to Template:Versailles which made this possible.

But it also clearly indicates that your MFD nomination was made without even minimal scrutiny of the portal page. As you know, I agree that nearly all these automated portals are at best useless, and at worst a disruptive waste of readers' time, and I support deletion. In this case, the portal is even worse that you thought. But the community relies on deletion nominations being made with some sort of diligence, at least a few basic checks ... and the fact that you opened the portal page to use Twinkle but didn't even notice the flaw is clear evidence that you didn't even skim-read the page before nominating it.

This comes after my message to you yesterday about your disruption of an existing nimination, which I am sad to see that you deleted[2] from this page without archiving.

So I'm sorry, but I have lost confidence the integrity of your MFD nominations of portals. So I want to ask you to stop making them: i.e. you make no more deletions nominations for portals.

I think that voluntary restraint will be better for you and everyone else than a formal topic ban discussion at WP:ANI, so I hope you will consider this carefully. However, if you delete this message or or prematurely archive it, then I will take this matter to ANI.

Pinging Thryduulf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I note that the warning which you deleted yesterday was restored[3] by @Robert McClenon. I'm not sure about the advisability of Robert doing that to another editor's talk page, but I hope that Legacypac will view it as a helpful act by a friend. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination based only on similarity to Winter Palace. There was no need to articulate everything wrong with the portal or research it in depth because it is a single building or complex of buildings. A million other fixable errors in the construction of the portal do not matter when the unfixable scope is the core issue. Many many nominations happen and others discover or note additional problems. For example you removed 30 odd portals from one of your noms over a supposed mistake that turned out not to be a mistake, then added and removed 1300 more. I'm still trying to figure out why you did a test covering half of the batch instead of all of them. I already know you despise me so please stop throwing your admin weight around on my talkpage and stop trying to derail my nominations like you did by posting inaccurate info at my small LA neighborhood bundle. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, @Legacypac, I do not despise you. On the contrary, here is lots I like about you. And I am raising these issues here as a less escalating alternative to raising them at ANI. If you would prefer me to take them there, then I will do; but otherwise I will notify you here.

But I am increasingly concerned that your excessive haste in throwing pages onto MFD without properly checking the facts is creating too much drama and thereby discrediting the whole process of cleanup.

I have seen you do much the same thing in two other types of XFD, and it is deeply counterproductive. It creates drama which distracts everyone from the substantive issues, and gives ammunition to those who want to stop the whole cleanup.

So please, less haste and more care is the way for you to stop undermining your own efforts.

I'm sorry to see that you responded by misrepresenting what happened at the mass MFD. Another editor raised a concern, so I promptly did a re-check and here were 36 pages which had been mistakenly included. I promptly removed them and apologised; and instead of complaining that my error had been detected, I thanked NA1K for raising the problem -- because we are engaged in a collaborative effort to get it right, not in a battle.

And it's also untrue to say that the batch of any 36 which I removed turned out not to be a mistake. None of them met the criteria set for the nomination. It later turned out that 30 of the 36 do meet a similar criterion, and will be included in a later batch, but they should not have been included in this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

Hi Legacypac, Your nomination for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Decompression (diving) was based on a false premise. There are not 16 articles in Category:Diving decompression, there are 18 excluding the additional 6 in the subcategory Category:Decompression algorithms. The total in the category Diving decompression is 24. This exceeds the current requirement even if they were the only articles used in the portal. As it happens there are over 40 articles used in the portal, but that is not obvious at a cursory glance. Unfortunately I did not notice the MfD and no-one bothered to notify me, so I was not able to point these details out at the MfD. You have more experience with deletions than most so I assume you will know what to do about this.

The portal was indeed created by The Transhumanist, but on request as a demonstration of how to use the templates. It was not part of any mass creation and is an integral and important part of the underwater diving portal system.

The earlier one-piece underwater diving portal was split because it was too big to render as a single portal. I am open to suggestions on how to condense the sub-portals to a smaller number providing that the subdivision is logical, useful to the reader, and complies with categorisation appropriate to the topic. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, I just checked the code of the deleted portal. It was a navbox-based portal, using Template:Decompression (diving). The overwehlming consensus at MFD is that such portals are useless ... so there is near-zero chance that the portal would have survived MFD.

If you want, you can open a DRV, and maybe will have a fresh MfD. Then I or someone else can point out that Template:Decompression (diving) contains only 50 pages, 6 of which are stubs or duplicates and one of which is the head article. So that 43 pages for the selected articles list. If you seriously want to claim that this is an example "a broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", per WP:POG, then prepare for a debate. Than minimum of 20 is minimum, not a mandate,

I really think it is long past time that you and the other portal fans accepted where consensus lies, and stopped trying to defend every single microportal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, If you look closely, you might notice that I am not, as you put it, trying to defend every single microportal. I would like to inspect the consensus you refer to regarding navbox-based portals, if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it is expressed, as there is nothing on the portals guidelines that indicates that there is a consensus on that point. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Southwood, also look at the overwhelming support for a mass cull at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox.

Note that I did not accuse you personally of "trying to defend every single microportal". I was pointing to the collective failure of you and the other portal fans; there's nearly always at least one of you pitching up at MFD to defend any old piece of driveby portsalspam.

And look at WT:WPPORT: there is absolutely nothing there from project members such as yourself which tries to grade, classify or triage portals. The only such discussion there is one begun today by me ... but collectively, you and the other portal fans have done almost nothing to assist the cleanup of the wave of spam which TTH unleashed with the full knowledge, support and encouragement of you personally and many other editors.

You and the rest of the team defended TTH against complaints about the volume of junk, you were aware of his "newsletters" which boasted endlessly of quantity and you did noting to assess quality ... and yet even after hundreds and hundreds of portals have been deleted and while ~1900 are currently at MFD, even now all you do is try to wikilawyer about the deletion of one narrow topic. Wow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion

of that DYK was hilarious :-) And, guessing leather is just impossible! ∯WBG^converse 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Stars, Portal:Fish, maybe Portal:World ocean ... nope. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What portal contains DYK...... that the Custer Wolf, a North American gray wolf referred to as the "master criminal of the animal world", killed livestock worth almost $300,000 in today's money?

What portals contain DYK...that Alvin Adams founded Adams and Company, forerunner to Adams Express Company, to haul express freight shipments by rail in 1840?

DYK... that professional baseball player Terry Doyle works as a substitute teacher during the offseason?

DYK... that Uncle Tom once led a professional baseball league in stolen bases?

DYK... that no commercial boat has beaten the steamboat Robert E. Lee's (pictured) 1870 speed record between New Orleans and St. Louis of 90 hours and 14 minutes to this day?

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

Your work and contributions at the AfC Wikiproject are exemplary. I've messed up my assessment of you earlier, and I'm grateful that you've forgiven me for that. But truly, it's a wonder why it's taken me this much time to hand over this barnstar to you. You're probably amongst the most dedicated contributors at this Wikiproject and I'm thankful to have you as a valued colleague. With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you truly are an outstanding contributor. Keep up the great work! :) Lourdes

Thank-you that means a lot from an Admin. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Lakshmi Ramaswamy

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Lakshmi Ramaswamy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'll take this on. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fulbright and Kalaimamani are the words in this draft that pop out and say, "hey, let's have a look into this draft, and let's see how we can improve it". (Unfortunately it may also be Copyvio O'Clock on the text of this draft article.) I'll do my my best to fix things. Let's see what happens. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm worried. I've made a promise I'm not sure I can keep. First step for me is to read up on Classical Indian dance, and then reach out to other editors who can read Hindi - for default-wide Indian media sigcov - and then to fellow editors who can read the Dravidian languages for specific references... Pete "Il faut imaginer Shirt58 heureux" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I might start by looking at whether an article about Drid Williams is feasible, as it might be start for English language references generally. I'd appreciate your feedback. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New edits on David Benaron article

Hi Legacypac, I updated the article David Benaron in January to address some issues it had however the "multiple issues" notice still appears on the article. As I am new on the system I wasn't sure who to approach about this and I hoped you wouldn't mind me asking you directly as I saw you have accepted the article back in October last year. Thanks in advance for your suggestions! --Seagull019 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

+On the principle of teaching a man to fish rather then giving fish away User:Seagull019 the multiple issues box comes from the very first line on the page. It's called a template and can be identified by the {{ marks. You can edit it out by erasing that line. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance Legacypac! --87.70.145.37 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Priceless

[4] Portal:Lua programming language has a red lua error.

YCMTSU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I need to move the portal content manually

The portal page itself doesn't help me any. I have to copy-paste the contents of all those dumb little subpages. Abyssal (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. They are not being used anyway now. You can do that as you like. The portal page can be speedy deleted anytime you like by you. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Just my 2c, FWIW: I would keep phrases like "should be topic banned" out of XfD discussions, to keep the temp. down. WP:ANI is the only good place for those, as a last resort, IMHO. And thanks for your excellent work on the project! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes do you think it is time for requiring all pages they create to go through AfC? The idea of bot created templates is frightening. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is necessary yet. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Maghsoud_Farasatkhah

Hello Good time I've read the rules I wanted to ask if possible to review the page Draft:Maghsoud_Farasatkhah I do not have the possibility to edit Thank You (Saeedigimon (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

Still gravedancing I see

[5]...Weren't you blocked for attacking this editor in the past? Unless of course you want to bring an indef upon yourself as well I'd refrain from such petty things.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall. I was once blocked very inappropriately for alleged gravedancing. The blocking admin should be defrocked for that stupid block and you should go find something productive to do other then hassling me. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nom question

Hey LP: looks like on several portals you attached MfD tags and created discussions, but then they weren't put onto the MfD page; probably makes sense for you to to pull the tags off those portals/CSD G7 the discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

They are sitting at User:Legacypac/sandbox pending a couple other closes and/or maybe a DRV. If you want to nominate one feel free to copy the code into MfD and make your own nom statement. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Hockey League. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You are trolling and you know better than to template an editor with more than 150,000 edits. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-Template Warning

First, Don't Template the Regulars is an essay, not a guideline, so you have no basis for scolding User:BrownHairedGirl about that. She has more edits than you do, and, second, you should not be accusing an administrator of trolling unless they really are being a troll, which she is not. Your repeated claims that she is trolling you have crossed the line into being personal attacks. You don't need enemies if this is the way you treat those who agree with you on a content issue. Or, rather, you will have enemies on both sides of the content issue if you continue to follow a scorched-earth approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The last person that treated me this way ended up blocked and IBANed from me. I'm quite tired with the regular inappropriate comments. She goes out of her way to be nasty while I go out of my way to support her nominations wherever I can. Pick your description of what she is doing but it needs to stop. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the edit[6] in which Legacypac edited my comment.

My comment refers to

1. Legacypac's false assertion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Hockey League that just a fork of Template:National Hockey League which is the driver for this page. The reality is that the page Portal:National Hockey League is driven by the links on two pages
2. Legacypac's wholly false nomination at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine, whose flaws I describe here[7]

Neither of those is a personal attack. WP:NPA specifically says "A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack".

I will not desist from pointing out significant errors in XFD nominations, by anyone. The reason that so many of my recent comments about errors related to Legacypac is simply that Legacypac is making a lot of errors in the MFD discussions which I follow.

Correcting errors of fact or procedure is an important part of the consensus-building process. It is not possible to build a valid consensus on the basis of mis-statements, and an XFD built on the basis of demonstrable falsehoods will be overturned at DRV. If Legacypac is unable to accept that errors will be noted, they should stop participating in XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep your opinions off my talkpage and preferably to yourself. No need to drag you criticisms of my nominations and editing here too. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Having your book made into a film

Hey there Legacypac, I saw your comment at Draft:John Mersereau that having your book made into a film meets WP:CREATIVE. I haven't heard that before, could you explain it for me? Is it because of criterion #3? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The film must be notable of course, not some kid's youtube creation. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it thanks. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cerebellum: I accepted the draft. Looks like it would survive an AfD + created by FloridaArmy, a prolific author of accepted drafts. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy does good work. His pages are almost always a quick accept. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Draft:Elizabeth Lincoln Gould and Draft:Taft Middle School need reviewing. Draft:Ray Malone is one that has stuggled for an approval but he seems wuite notable to me. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Heads up

Portal:Fullerton, California - maybe Twinkle glitched? The nomination wasn't completed. SITH (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting an MFD after it is open

You replaced the MFD for Portal:Saddam Hussein with redirect to the MFD for Portal:Ruhollah Khomeini after I had already !voted to Delete the Hussein portal. This was disruptive. I know that you meant well, but there are times when redirecting something is disruptive. I have already objected to Speedy Redirects of drafts that have been nominated at MFD while the MFD is in progress, and the instructions say not to blank, delete, or move. This time, rather than merely redirecting the page, you redirected the MFD for the page. The portals are enough of a problem without the critics of portals complicating things by bundling things after they are already in progress. Don't do that again. If an MFD is already getting !votes, let it run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is more complex then you describe. I filed the MfD and then BHG bullied me into withdrawing it. I put it in my sandbox waiting to maybe take it to DRV after some additional similar noms closed. Then BHG linked the page from her MfD incorrectly claiming it already under discussion, but it was not, it was sitting in my sandbox. So I made a bundle, but after bundling it I found you had voted even though it was not an active MfD. Roughly that's the sequence as far as I can figure out. Sorry for any confusion. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I may offer some insight here, Robert McClenon.
Legacypac, you used twinkle to nominate Portal:Saddam Hussein for deletion. That notice stayed up for five days linking to this page until UnitedStatesian took down the notice [ link ] (this happened for a bunch of these nominations I take it). I was reviewing the portal situation, and I was understandably confused by this turn of events. The MfD was live for the portal page like five days in between when UnitedStatesian took down the link and when you put it up for nomination (but meant to have it taken down). This was the fourth time I saw UnitedStatesian had did this. However, unlike the previous times I came across the portals from this list, I not only undid UnitedStatesian's removal of the notice (which I had assumed was in error since the page linked to a previously created nomination mfd subpage) but saw it wasn't listed at MFD. Therefore, I concluded this was must've been an error and well... added it. Then I did it again in this edit for two more.
Robert, this was how you were able to comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saddam Hussein. You would not have commented had I not interfered by adding it to MfD. My apologies to all involved (most especially UnitedStatesian who had the good sense to take down the mfd notices before I mucked that up). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)