User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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

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
p 19:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Non-free characters

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:

Redirected template, Redirect hasno meaningful incoming links

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]

Scout ranks

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
p 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Tagging issues at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

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
p 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]

Essay

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.
p 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"
p 05:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitration notification

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—

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

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

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. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army 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. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

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:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia 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.
  • Chicago 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

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
]

Request for Arbitration case declined

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, —

21 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

RfA: thank you for your support

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]

Isaiah Rider

Regarding the Isaiah Rider page: there was a significant amount of content that was unsourced, some of which seems dubious. For example, I couldn't find any reliable sources to support that claim that he parked in Curt Fraser's parking spot. (Some blogs mention it, but they might just be copying from Wikipedia.) Other content is surely out of date-for example, mentions of court appearances in 2008, without any follow-up on what happened.

While I don't think we should be whitewashing the page, it is important to get things right, and I just wasn't comfortable with the article in that form. If negative content is to be restored, it must be impeccably sourced. Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reason I reverted was that you weren't logged in when you deleted 7 KBs of content the first time. The rest of it was that, the first time, you deleted 1-2 KBs of accurate, non-controversial information
p 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think I've ever edited that page as an IP. I know I haven't done so recently. The initial blanking was done by someone else - probably someone related to User:Vrider3434.
I don't have time right now, but if I have time later today, I'll try to add some brief, neutral content about Rider's struggles. I just didn't feel comfortable with the wholesale restoration of the text, because when I started looking closely, I kept finding things that worried me. I'm not saying that Rider is a saint, but we owe it to every article subject to be fair and accurate. Zagalejo^^^ 15:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Buss

Hi. I've nominated Jim Buss, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Mary

Mary never wrote any religious writings nor is she worshipped as a god, not? I removed two redundant religious figures and added two scientists, stop being a control freak. Right now there are two Jews, three Christians, and two Muslims, that's balanced and broad coverage. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, say that on the talk page. I don't argue that there are probably good reasons for many of your removals. But Vital articles Lv. 1, 2, and 3 (10, 100, 1000) are full, so a consensus is needed before making changes. You need to get a consensus for those changes 'before making them. Believing in the principles of BRD doesn't make me a "control freak"
p 05:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but you reverted for the sake of reverting, not based on content improvement. Loosen the reigns, allow intelligent editors to give input, and let the artistic creativity flow. Its just a list, it will eventually reflect an honest and broad coverage, but before I started editing there, it was almost all white guys from 1700-1900. There is more to the world then white guys. Please don't be wikitedious, I'm not an idiot. Tweak my edits of course, but please don't full-scale revert RfC style. Okay? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not OK. You're putting the cart before the horse here. You've got to get consensus, and the general practice on that page has been to get consensus before making edits. There was at one point a consensus for each of the people you've removed; therefore removing them without discussion is editing without consensus.
p 05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You are being tedious. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets both stop edit waring and discuss this at talk, and after you've wasted several hours of my precious time, you'll see that I was right, okay? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Man, if you think that discussion threads are a waste of time, you should not be editing...
p 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said "discussion threads are a waste of time" per se, I meant to predict that your feeble arguments against my improvements to the list will be "a waste of time". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new message!

Mediran's talk page.
Message added 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply
]

t • c) 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

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 March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

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 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by

Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a

curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook
in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the

to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants
to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) 11:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Mail call

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

[1] for that ANI that Gabe'll be starting about now

p
16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [2] also for the ANI
p 16:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of FBI field offices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania (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) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Jim Buss

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jetstreamer Talk 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

For the fifth time, please stay off my talk page

I've asked you four times in the last week to stay off my talk: 5 March request, 5 March, 2nd request, 8 March request, and now the fourth request: here. Please, keep the VA discussions at the appropriate talk pages, and stop posting to my talk. Please don't push this further.

"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

It's sensible, but it's by no means required, hence the title of the section, "No ban". It takes ANI sections to ban a user from another user's page. And generally, if you want an editor to stop interacting with you, you should stop interacting with the editor on his own page and in community noticeboards. Now I know you ain't going to do that, since you post a response to every single thing I post at WP:VA and WP:VA/E, and you just posted to my own talkpage. So just accept that I'm going to post to your user page from time to time, there's very little that you can do to stop me, and it might behoove you to actually read what I post there
p 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I suppose he did read it, Purplebackpack89. I know I did. If you want to talk to him about WP:VA I suggest you confine the discussion there, as he is obviously watching those pages and interested in participating. To continue to post on his talk when he has specifically and repeatedly asked you not to is really not a good idea and I strongly recommend that you not do so any more, unless of course you are notifying him of file deletions or ANI discussions or other such matters. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, unless he agrees to stop posting here. Furthermore, there are times when he does dumb things that can't just be discussed at WP:VA or WP:VA/E, like start an RfC of a subsection of a section that's already an RfC
p 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You are not required to police Gabe and notify him when he is doing dumb things. It's simply a really bad idea. Really bad idea. Just my 2p -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so lemme get this straight...according to you, Gabe can do dumb things, then insulate his own talk page from criticism, while continuing to talk to those same people on their own talk page? Not on, sorry. If Gabe wants me off his talk page, he should refrain from interacting with me elsewhere. Can you at least acquiesce to that?
p 01:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Persisting in posting on his talk page to critique his behaviour is unnecessary and disruptive. Please stop doing it. Also, he's perfectly within his rights to edit in any topic area of his choosing, as he is not topic banned from participating anywhere on this wiki, so he is not obliged to obey your wishes in this matter. See below where Gabe has apologised for not noticing the RFC, apparently the talk page is getting huge and complex and that's why he missed it. So best you accept the apology and drop it now PBP. -- Dianna (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he can edit wherever, whenever, so can I. I am not topic-banned from his page, and I find it very unlikely I will be, and even more unlikely that I will be without him being banned from here. Also, if he can ban whomever he wants from his talk page, so can I. So I ban you. I'm not sure why you're even here in the first place, but I suggest stopping telling me how to edit
p 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I've only ever started three threads here. The first, from two weeks ago was my attempt to work with you. It soon became clear to me that you are not interested in compromising with me, at all, so I stopped posting to it on 25 February. The second thread I started here was to inform you of the edit-warring report I opened on you, which I am required to notify you of. This third, and hopefully last thread, was to ask you to please keep your numerous content disputes at the appropriate talk pages, and to stop posting to my talk, as all you do there is insult, bully, and demean me. You are not my boss so please stop attempting to order me around. Sorry, yeah, I didn't notice you had already opened an RfC a few threads above in that tangled mess of a talk page, what an idiot I must be. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"All you do there is insult, bully, and demean me." Sounds just like what you do on WP:VA and WP:VA/E
p 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Gentleperson's agreement

Why take it to ANI and go through the whole ban thing? As a neutral party, might I suggest a gentleperson's agreement right here? Why not just type "Agreed" and sign below?

I agree to stay off the other's talk page. (Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Agreed
    p 03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

DYK for Jim Buss