User talk:Purplebackpack89: Difference between revisions

User talk: Purplebackpack89
Archives
2008
2009
2010 (Jan-Aug)
2010 (Aug-Dec)
2011 (Jan-Jun)
2011 (Jul-Dec)
2012 (Jan-Jun)
2012 (July-Dec)
2013 (Jan-Jun)
2013 (July-Dec)
2014 (Jan-Jun)
2014 (July-Dec)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Purplebackpack89, thank you for your valiant efforts in building this project. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Though I doubt you're going to get anywhere in this debate due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, your viewpoint on the issue and your line of reasoning shows you are thinker. Keep it up! And don't despair. The service of truth is the hardest service. NickCT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for putting forward the suggestion on ANI that we block, rather than ban, User:LiteralKa. It may or may not pass, but at the end of the day, you did the right thing by suggesting it. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your battling abusive administrators and their sycophants. They do more destruction to Wikipedia than Joe can ever do and they know it. ...William 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your hard work organizing and maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles. You are an asset to the project; keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Merging Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work on multiple merge & redirects re: Yoko Tsuno. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of American Basketball Association arenas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oakland Oaks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I have removed the merge tag from this article as you did not start a subsequent discussion and the individual seems notable enough as a Bishop not to merge. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess our big issue is differing ideas about the scope of the page. That it's about the name seems clear to me by the inclusion of "black olive", which I will strongly note, is already included on the page and has been since long before I began editting it.

Secondly, I dispute that "avacado" really falls into the "olive" range, as it's too creamy, for lack of a better term. That is, it's too diffuse, and not within the expectations of "olive". That it's another shade of green-yellow, and somewhat similar is true, but not one people would include as a shade of olive. (Hence the seperate name.) I believe including it is OR.

Likewise, insisting "olive" is a shade of yellow because of interpretation of one web color's RGB coordinate is also pretty darn OR. It was especially bad in the previous versions; one cannot say "it's clearly yellow because of the absence of blue". Not only is that drawing an original conclusion, it's a false one as "yellow" connote be defined so formulaicly, not can any color. When the vast majority of sources call olive a shade of green (and Merriam-Webster defines it as a "yellowish green"), insisting on calling it yellow is not acceptable. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinatowns in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanyi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

[1] But they haven't accepted the nomination yet! — goethean ॐ 19:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? They've been chosen, there's a 0% chance anyone else will, and it's not speculation that they will accept the nomination...it's been announced that they will formally accept the nomination in a few hours. Claiming that they should still be listed as presumptive now is just splitting hairs, sorry pbp 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience on the Vital Articles. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just wait for other people to comment, and, with luck, your changes will be implemented! pbp 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to clarify that I was not attempting to personally attack you on the AN/I page regarding your proposal of a full protection until the election when I posted my strongly worded rebuttal. I just think it's a terrible idea, but I have no doubt you were acting in good faith. Sorry if that read differently than it was intended. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns of you renaming the Army One article to Aircraft of the President of the United States which should have been a new article rather than a move as it messes up the article histories etc. We need to boldy undue your edits and start again I suspect, comment welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Aircraft of the President of the United_States, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just keep it the way it is. You're overthinking it pbp 15:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the feedback on my talk page. For the record, I created no extra work for you -- you chose to volunteer your time and add geocoordinates to the articles. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer project, and I have no idea how to add geocoordinates to articles nor am I interested in learning how to do so. That being said, I always appreciate when other contributors add geocoordinates to articles, whether or not they are ones I started, so THANK YOU (very sincerely) for doing so. The stubs I created are for a specific meeting, edit-athon and project which will begin soon in collaboration with Multnomah County Library. I understand you might see stubs as detrimental to the encyclopedia, but I happen to believe they are important and encourage participation, especially among new users. All of the articles I created have the ability to snowball into full articles, including potential to reach GA status one day, as evidenced by the Woodstock Library article (referring to its full length, fingers crossed on obtaining GA status in the near future). There is no reason to merge all of the articles, especially considering some of the subjects are Carnegie libraries or even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Hopefully the articles will not be merged, allowing new editors the opportunity to expand them more easily in the near future. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating that table. What you did looks like a good start, so I want to commend you for that. However, we've started a project goal of widely implementing the {{jctint}} series of templates for creating and maintaining junction/exit lists. (Some states have a specific version, like {{MIint}} for Michigan or {{KSint}} for Kansas.)

So I took your table, switched it to templates, which has the advantage that any changes to MOS:RJL can be made to the templates to update the formatting in the articles very quickly. As an example of one of those changes, earlier this year we recoded how the mileage column is set up so that the tables are more accessible for screen readers and other adaptive technologies, per MOS:DTT. We also set up the templates to convert a supplied mileage and display the converted value in kilometers for non-US readers; the templates also handle the reverse if you look at Interstate 19. That means though that the table needs the mileages added. I opened a discussion on Talk:Kansas Turnpike to refine the templatized version of what you added. Once we get it "perfected", we can move it back into the article. (And yes, I support having a table there, just need to do it well since that's a FA.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2748 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting but it is preferred that users comment why they agree or feel the article should be deleted, this helps establish appropriate consensus. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jalapeño, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this administrator, I feel that he may also be supervoting in terms of CSD's and PROD's, one example of which is here. He also has continued the same arguments against mine about that same page, without even rebutting mine, etc. Just in total, if you'd like to request request for de-adminship, I would support it all the more.

Thanks, gwickwire | Leave a message 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to start an AfD for this article, would you comment support for it? Because right now it seems futile to open an AfD that would have so much opposition to probably be snowball keep. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but then you'd probably get it dragged off to the hellhole that calls itself ARS, and then we'd get a big hissyfit. I'd just BOLDly redirect it to something with the edit summary "little or no content, redundant", and if you're reverted, then start a merger discussion to that. pbp 02:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boldidity has come to scare me, as in my experience it leads to incivility. But I think your judgement is correct. I don't know how I'd be in favor of a merger though, because there is no page that is a plausible merge that doesn't already have the information.. So I'll go sneak and go to redirect it. Thanks for the input. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As a resident of the hellhole known as ARS, I was surprised to find I was an early editor calling the existence of this article into question. I am fine with the redirect, though if we end up at AfD somehow, its not the end of the world. I came over here, pbp, however, to ask for your help rewriting Blended learning. Notability is assured, we just ideally need someone to spend a few hours researching and rewriting, as the project would be enhanced by a well-sourced article on this notable topic. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What's with the ridiculous attack on the ARS? I noticed the article mentioned on WilyD's talk page when there for another reason, and did nothing more than add a wikilink to slut walk and add the proper template. [2] Does this article have anything at all to do with the ARS? Was it made or significantly edited by any of its regular seen members? Dream Focus 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note above that Milowent mentions editing the article. You and Milowent makes two pbp 13:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,I edited the article because I suggested it should not exist. This is part of my super-secret ARS plan to never delete any articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about the RfC, and I'm still preparing. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coo coo. Lemme know when it happens pbp 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[3] Please consider withdrawing your delete nom, which automatically causes a Keep. I am an Obama partisan, frequently defending him even against ridiculous attacks from the Left, not just the Right. Nominating a clearly notable film for deletion when its notability stems precisely from how much of a streaming pile of crap it is -- I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense. As I point out in my AfD "P.S." comment, it can even backfire. Is the film infuriating? Of course it's infuriating. That's how it became notable. Wikipedia looking like it's even trying to suppress information about it doesn't work for Obama, or for the truth. In some things, the truth is enough. Yakushima (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Primary State Highways in Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington State Route 12 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored all versions to User:Purplebackpack89/Zuma Dogg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you pbp 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at Mdann52's talk page.
Message added 08:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mdann52 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historians of the United States by state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was trying to move Steak frites to the Steak-frites page (I have now found out how to do it properly!) and got it wrong. --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you (or can you) find a source for the bit you added to Budweiser Clydesdales about them being either a) Ambassadors for the city of St. Louis, and/or b) pulling the float in the Tournament of Roses Parade? It's cool info, but it's best to have citations for all this info, the article is mostly footnoted throughout, and it makes it a lot easier to do improvement later if someone wants to bring it up to GA quality or something... thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spring training, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalina Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_26#Category:Reformed_Christians.
Message added 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp just responded to you on my talkpage. Xvon (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey responded again Xvon (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again responded @ talk Xvon (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pbp, responded to your recent comments @ my talkpageXvon (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2748 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who falsely informed you, or what led you to the false conclusion that I "Deliberately" introduced incorrect information? I'm extremely interested in discovering the answer to this. (Hopefully this is right this time) Steve406sbc (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chili burger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger 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 template from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pbp, so I was reading up on "Ptomaine Tommy's" and I'm wondering "what the hell is 'ptomaine'", and learned it was a common reference for food poisoning in the early 20th century -- and something it was thought you could get from eating bad chili! [4][5]. Even if chili burger was to get deleted, there is tons of material on which to write a great article on Ptomaine Tommy's. Fun stuff.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that our friend's friend gave blessing for open season... Jim1138 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JPL? I'm a bit worried that he's a little too dug into Category-space...he had 500 edits to CfD pages last month, and most of the rest were recategorizing pages, often BOLDly in the middle of CfDs that aren't going his way. But since Xvon agreed with JPL on that issue, he can do whatever he wants. I think if Xvon keeps doin' what he's doing we'd better ask that he be topic-banned...he's in danger of becoming an SPA pbp 06:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, in the Russia CfD you wrote: though the author of almost all of them has already commented, so I'm not that concerned about notification. While this proposal seems to be JPL on a personal crusade, I actually think that lack of notification is a crucial failing in the CfD process. It seems to be quite broken, and encourages disruptive changes. While some of the regulars there are quite thoughtful, others that regularly haunt the CfD pages don't seem to want make edits, instead they play with categories and disrupt genuine content-creation. I tried to make them take some responsibility for what they are doing by proposing changes that would make it compulsory for CfDs to post notifications at WP:Projects or article pages, but these have been shouted down as too onerous. If they did, then the discussion might get joined by people who know something about the subject and would want to be involved in any re-categorisations. (I much prefer to edit, but got dragged into the CfD process when I realised that it has the capability to redefine and mess up articles.) OK, Groan over 8-) Ephebi (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I completed notification of all CfDs in the discussion; I see you have notified the Russian WikiProject. I'm not sure entirely where you're going with the comment; but I'm a bit discouraged that the CfD process, and with it much of Wikipedia's categorization system, seem to be dominated by a handful of editors, JPL in particular, who have a set idea of how the category tree should look (to the point of OWNership, IMO) and find it offensive that anyone would disagree with them or tell them their actions vis-a-vis categories are the least bit appropriate pbp 19:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Although the Russia CfD should be a straightforward delete/merge, I suspect it may stir things up more than it need. Your point is right, though the dominance of few editors would not be problematic if they avoided pointless reformatting, kept to broadly non-contentious proposals, or had the good grace to discuss topics with specialists who edit the subjects. OWN is huge issue,and drives away genuine expertise from genuine editors. Ephebi (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quick FYI on this whole "Johnpacklambert/OWNership" thing...I'm starting an RfC about it at User:Purplebackpack89/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. The more I persue his edits, the more disturbing it gets. Feel free to add to it and/or sign on to my edits. pbp 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Hi, been travelling so not had time to look at the issues... but just caught a glimpse at latest CfDs and alarmed at the way a host of new Cats were created and populated prior to submitting a CfD (14 Dec) Ephebi (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which one? Who populated it? Who CfDed it? Again, if you're worried about JPL, you might want to check out this RfCU I'm starting on him. I see you tried to reason with him, and he deleted your comment. This raises major questions about his ability to listen to criticism pbp 22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, Danjel. The idea of merger was repudiated at AfD, as was the idea that the article was a permastub, AND the idea that it doesn't pass GNG. There is a miniscule chance that it will be merged. And I very disturbed at what appears to be payback for Middle Harbour. What you're doing is a bad parody of what I allegedly do at AfD. However, I don't comment 30+ times in a single discussion, don't accuse editors of being meatpuppets or flowers, and don't nominate it for merger after an AfD is closed in a clear keep. You're not only doing a bad parody of me, you're doing an excessively dicky and pointy parody of me as well. Oh, and stop the HOUNDing pbp 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89 is a Chili Size Freedom Fighter.

cheers!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hurt, dawg![6]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, most of the time you mean well, but the fact is, sometimes you get a little carried away. And sometimes more than a little, like the "cheese jihadist" thing. Friends don't call friends cheese jihadists. My apologies, but I feel that we could benefit from less of that pbp 06:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and JPL need to get over this WP:GRUDGE you two are holding. While it's not a personal attack to start an RFC/U, that one is particularly lame. I strongly suggest you two avoid each other. I'll be glad to block both of you for WP:HOUND if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the RFC/U? I think there are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. JPL's talk page is filled with messages from other users about his poor record at CfD and adding/deleting categories, problems that are multiplied due to his high volume of edits. I personally don't consider it "lame", and I take umbrage at being called incompetent pbp 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Robidoux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Louis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your accusation of canvassing. The notifications I did were entirely within policy as and explicitly listed as "Appropriate Notification" in the policy. I have made no off wiki requests. The anon IP which made the nomination, as well as others which have voted delete, also has no edit history - perhaps gun topics just have increased scrutiny in the wake of the Newtown tragedy and media frenzy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One user is an SPA, another user notes that there's a suspicious level of editors with few or no contributions (who don't know how to use AfD enough to avoid having "Keep" in all caps), and a third is critical of who you messaged about this AfD (heavily tilted toward keeps). I stand by my suspicion of canvassing and SPA activity, and the not-a-vote tag pbp 21:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

The WikiProject Articles for creation Newsletter Volume I, No. I – December 2012 Visit the Articles for creation homepage Project news Five changes have been proposed to the AfC policy. Join the discussion here. Another change has been proposed to the courtesy blanking policy. It involves CSDing distributive submissions. Discuss it here. The beta script still needs testing. Learn how you can help here. The backlog is at emergency status and another drive has been proposed here and suggestions on changes to the structure have been proposed here. Discussion on updating the backlog notification is underway here. A discussion on whether autoconfirmed users are allowed to skip the backlog is going on here. Discussion on users not adding categories and not checking copyvios is going on here. Backlog news[1] There are 2746 pending submissions in the backlog. You can help! Article rankings[1]  FA  GA B C Start Stub  FL List Category Disambig Draft File Project Redirect Template NA ??? Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WikiProject Articles for creation  articles by quality     Refresh From the Editors This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (talk · contribs) Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) Notes ^ a b Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache. Script corner: Stable: v4.1.15 - Beta: v4.1.16b2 v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code. If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk · contribs) if you wish to help with development. Reviewing articles and more since 2005!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaiah Rider, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you have the ARS rescue list watchlisted, so no one can accuse me of canvassing (and in fact I don't know what your view will be), but based on our recent chili burger fun, I thought you mind be interested in checking out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatheads Burgers & Fries. I think DGG jumped the gun on the nomination, but the original article was pretty crappy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Leading U.S. Advertisers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Safeway, Freightliner, Coors, Centrum and Kia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you advice about how to do categories on the category called "Flavours of ice cream" - I have now added the articles on raspberry ripple and tutti frutti to the category. Again, many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure pbp 19:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free characters, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since an administrator seems to have deleted all the scout rank articles, and then they were recreated as no-history redirects, I think all the requested moves can be closed/withdrawn? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But there wasn't a prejudice against recreation; they could be recreated (under the titles I suggested) properly at any time pbp 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pbp. You tagged Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with two pretty serious issues, both of which are supposed to be accompanied by discussion on the talk page. Could you give your reasons there? Or if you think it's practicable, we can try to work it out here. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'll be level with you. I think the page should be deleted. But since you've got several ARS members involved and 14 references, there's no way it would be deleted as a result of an AfD. So merge it is. I think the page is an unnecessary content fork, and is full of biased fringe theory. This content only deserves one or two sentences on the entire project pbp 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a try at AfD, then. If you think it's against policy, that seems more productive than arguing for merging, tagging, etc. Merge outcomes are all too common at AfD anyway. In case this was a concern, I did not in any way seek out ARS members for support, though it makes sense that they'd show interest in new articles and current events. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now what's with this ARS stuff? This isn't going to be kept because of the ARS or not, it get kept (if it does) because of whackadoodle press coverage. BDD did not like my efforts to edit the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting interesting. But in the meantime, pbp, can you explain the {{disputed}} tag? Do you believe the article itself conveys factually inaccurate information? Not the theories themselves, of course—"disputed" is putting it mildly for them. But the article is well sourced. Do you think one of the sources is conveying false information, or that an editor's interpretation thereof does so? --BDD (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may well find this essay interesting. As it bears on some issues at the RFC at which you have commented.

WP:BOOMERANG (emphasis added) states:

"There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.... A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny."

It is, of course, an essay. As such, it contains the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, and essays in general may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. At the same time, it is my personal belief -- based on what I have seen in considerable time at the project -- that the above part of this particular essay does in fact reflect a widespread norm.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with BOOMERANG. Unfortunately, I'm also familiar with Danjel. Every time I question him, he accuses me of incompetence. I'm fuckin' tired of him doing that; likewise I'm sure you're tired of him dragging you through the muck. I want Danjel to get the Sam Sheridan out of our business. And, unfortunately, it's looking like he won't be blocked. So, yes, I'm pissed. pbp 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply pointing it out because it was a point in which our views differed. And I thought that your comment came out on the other side of the issue -- as you wrote "5a. Since this RfC/U is a form of Danjel talking about Epeefleche, it should be closed with no action taken". My view is that, per the view expressed in the essay, which I personally believe is a widespread norm, it is appropriate for the editing behavior of the accuser to come under scrutiny now that he has initiated the RFC. And, when that happens, I believe that it is appropriate for action to be taken. Against him. Along the lines that I requested and which a number of editors have called for -- that an interaction ban be placed upon him. If you disagree, that's of course fine. But I wanted to explain why I had a different view as to whether action should be taken. I believe it should be taken. Against him. With an interaction ban being imposed against him. The fact that he initiated the RFC does not limit us, IMHO, to the result being "about EF". But if you have a different view, I respect it. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oughta clarify that, shouldn't I? When I said, "no action taken", I meant "no action taken AGAINST YOU" pbp 05:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PBB, thank you for your support during my RfA. Assuming I survive the next 24 hours, I hope that I can be of assistance to you whenever you require admin help. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PBB, it did not end well in spite of your efforts and those of some other very good editors. I hope you were not disappointed with me as a candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]