Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 10 February 2012 (→"Inherently non-notable" - don't post to my talkpage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

		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)

	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)

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

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

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

ANI

Just so you'll know, I've brought a matter up at ANI here and mentioned your name, feel free to comment. Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Purplebackpack89! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Hi,
Laurel Green was removed (along with much other padding) because it was unsourced. It was not "lost in the shuffle". Why did you re-add it? If you have a reliable source, please share; that would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a reliable source? Not really. Bob, I honestly think BOLDly (i.e. without consensus) removing a lot of color boxes isn't the way to go. If we're off a little, say we say 150, 50, 200 when it's really 155, 45, 200; I don't see that as a biggie. The Hex triplets for many of those are approximate. Honestly, there is disagreement in some sources about the real color of many of the colors; even having a different setting on your monitor will produce different results. If we stipulate that Hex triplets for most colors are approximate, I don't think they necessarily need to be removed. I would also urge you to get a consensus for the removals, if you don't have one already Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (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: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Misplaced Pages has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Misplaced Pages editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Meetup/LA/Invite.

You said you live "way on the other side of town". Are you hesitant because it's a long drive, or because you'd need a ride? If it's the latter, would you mind adding your city/neighborhood to the meetup page? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reveal that to the world, so I'll e-mail it to yah Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting bit of code

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMiscellany_for_deletion&action=historysubmit&diff=460523255&oldid=460473809 ...due to a coding error [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rhain1999/Superman&oldid=460427804 this revision of an MFD has its start date read as January 1, 1970

Orphaned non-free image File:The most interesting man.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The most interesting man.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK...so you delete a file without consensus from an article, and then nominate it for deletion? Since you had no consensus to remove the file from the article, I have placed it back in the article and removed the QD. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again. I don't need consensus to enforce the Non-free content criteria, which does not allow for non-free images to be used when a free image could be used in its place. There are no substantive differences between the actor and the character that can be detected from the the pictures, there's no costume, no special makeup, even the clothing is the same. There isn't a need for a non-free image here. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

hi

Purpleback, please see my response to your comments on the Notre Dame–Army talk page. I responded as soon as I could. Let's try to keep it in one place so we aren't chasing each other across multiple pages. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

Removal of AfD notice from Jim Rogers article

Hello! I noticed that when you closed the AfD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician) and relisted most of the people individually, you did not remove the AfD notice from the article Jim Rogers (politician). I took the liberty of removing it, since it now points to a closed discussion. Hope that was OK. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mindell Penn has had numerous updates including several new references from major newspapers such as the Sacramento Bee, Beaufort Gazette, and San Francisco Chronicle, it may be in your interest to review them in light of the deletion debate.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Harpreet Sandhu

I have expanded and added a lot more information with regards to notability and reliable sources at Harpreet Sandhu which you may want to have a look at. hereLuciferWildCat (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Steakhouse, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Roll (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Logo Provision

The Logo provision of the fair use only applies to the logo part of the image, there is no fair use claim to be made for the rest of the image, hence it could be replaced by a free picture taken at any game and the logo element of that picture coved by fair use. Mtking 05:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That has never been the way the logo provision has been interpreted vis-a-vis sports helmets and/or uniforms. Your files for deletion requests are disruptive, and were created solely to prove a point. Please withdraw them Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

They are neither disruptive nor were they made to make a point; I will not withdraw them as I believe that the use of the copyrighted image of the whole helmet is not justified as the image is clearly replaceable with one that is free with only the logo section of that free image needing to make use of fair use. Mtking 05:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked WP's copyright expert (User:Moonriddengirl) for comments and also on the matter of File:BaylorHelmet.gif as the logo it depicts is not copyrightable at all. Mtking 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

St. David School (Richmond, California)

St. David School (Richmond, California), I added a new source to article from USA Today and additional commentary to the deletion debate that you may be interested going over.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

USAToday source does not add to the notability; see discussion thread on talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

LuciferWildCat

This is a friendly observation: I see a negative and confrontational dynamic developing between you and this other editor. I believe that you are correct on the merits of the AfD on the school in Richmond, California, and sided with you there. Please consider disengaging from this editor for a while. I believe that de-escalation would be good for the encyclopedia, and for the two of you as well. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you have a point, but I am continually disturbed by this editor's lack of CLUE and general combattiveness; turning quotidian AfDs into battlegrounds and adding junk references that add almost nothing to the article (and certainly not an attestation of notability) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Five days have gone by, and I feel compelled to repeat my original recommendation. Please let other editors and administrators attempt to encourage LuciferWildCat to better understand and accept our policies and guidelines. It seems clear to me that your own efforts toward that end are quite unlikely to be productive. I also recommend against removing references from an article during AfD, though it is fine to point out their shortcomings in the debate or on the article's talk page. This behavior, though not against any rule I'm aware of, is almost certain to inflame the debate and increase hostility. If the article in question survives AfD, then gain consensus on the talk page before removing weak references. Don't be seen by others as gaming the system. You are an excellent editor. Please don't let your emotions and rivalries get the better of you. I wish you well. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have said that the last comment I made on ANI will be the last comment I make in that ANI thread; unless a new subsection is started. I intend to get any extraneous references removed or properly integrated; I also think that the argument that "oh, we can do it because it's at AfD" is weak; had they been added in the manner they were at a more established article they'd have been quickly removed. I notice that Spartaz has called out Lucifer...knowing Lucifer, he'll be upset and start an ANI against Spartaz that'll be an absolute riot Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I have called anyone out but I'm happy to help anyone become a more effective editor. From your point of view, your interactions with Luciferwildcat have become destructive and self-defeating as neither of you seem willing to let the other get the final word. I strongly urge you to show that you are the bigger wikipedian by ignoring them and their posts. Irrelevant and logicaly falicious arguments can be identified and ignored by the closing admin without needing a comment from the bleachers. Everytime you get embroiled in a childish argument you damage your own reputation and it's becoming seriously boring. Honestly, your userpage implies you are an adult so please try to act like one. Spartaz 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I second Spartaz's comments. Many, many editors have tried (some politely, some less so) to get you to drop this endless argument and just move on. Moving on would NOT include carrying the argument to my talk page, as you just did. As for removing references in the heat of an AfD discussion, I continue to think that is a violation of the process - and as Cullen points out above it is a finger in the eye of the person who added the reference, likely to "inflame the debate and increase hostility." If inflaming debate and increasing hostility is not your goal - and I will WP:Assume good faith that it is not - then I seriously advise you to cease that practice. If your nomination for deletion is valid, it will get deleted - without your needing to put a thumb on the scales by undoing people's attempts to improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I explained to you why I violates no policy, and I would contest you saying that bad references "improve" an article. Furthermore, Sionk also removed references, so chastising me and not him is hypocritical. I told you, or somebody else, that I stepped away from the ANI discussion; what more do you want? I still think you're coming too hard on me; as I ain't the one violating the policies Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Notability Noticeboard

Hello.  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers

Hello Purpolebackpack89, I note with interest your comments about my participation in the AFD debale http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ocean_County_Sheriff%27s_Department#Ocean_County_Sheriff.27s_Department ::Quote: User's account is only one day old; he has made only four contributions to Misplaced Pages - What has that got to do with with my participation this AFD debate? Do my comments have a lesser standing than yours? Let's concentrate on the debate about the article and not about editors. I've done a quick search on policy here and I found this Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers IDionz (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Purplebackpack89, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Purplebackpack89/Status Template.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Metro Walk

I have begun a thread regarding a dispute on policy at ANI.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop your negative and exceptionally counterproductive interaction with LuciferWildCat. Please take him off your watch list. Please take the articles he cares about off your watch list. Please ignore everything he does on Misplaced Pages and let other editors mentor him. You, and only you, can end this drama fest. Please drop the stick and stop beating the horse. Please step back now. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to monitor his edits, and make sure he eventually has a grasp of policy? Good. Thanks for stepping up. And don't blame me for his rampant violations/misunderstandings/ignorance of policy. That's him...he's been here three months and has a dirtier block record than I do Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈

I would be happy to mentor him and I am sure that other experienced editors will as well. But, as usual in recent weeks, you divert the discussion. I am discussing your behavior now, not the other editor's. As I see the situation, your behavior has been confrontational and you have failed to de-escalate, mentor, welcome and concentrate on improving articles. Over and over, you have chosen to throw down the gauntlet. You could have set an example by welcoming a new editor and working with them patiently to develop their understanding of our policies and guidelines. Instead, you chose the path of confrontation and hostility. Why is that? Please ponder carefully and thoughtfully before you answer. And when you do, do not blame the other editor. That is getting really old. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think to say that I am "confrontational and hostile" is stretching it...and when did expecting articles to be in line with policy and guidelines become "throwing a gauntlet?" You seem to care too much about civility and too little about all the other policies and guidelines we have here. Over and over, I attempted to explain why edits that normally would need no explanation were perfectly acceptable...the result was that I was yelled at constantly, and other editors who should be also improving articles turned blind eyes Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 08:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban and mentorship

Thank you for your email. I see no evidence of an interaction ban being agreed to between you and LuciferWildCat. Am I missing something? How can someone violate a ban that hasn't been imposed? Also, there has been no mentorship discussion let alone an agreement, although I offered. Why do you continue to nominate articles of interest to that editor for deletion? Don't you "get it"? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Melanie's proposal has broad-based support when I hit the sack last night, so I'd expected he'd be codified by now. I expected you to say something on the lines of "don't nominate anything for deletion". The agreement was Richmond only; none of those articles have anything to do with Richmond. LWC didn't comment on those AfDs because they "interest him". He commented on them simply because I nominated them, and he wanted another chance to confront me. Two people have been nominating school-related entries that disagree with school precedent...Epeefleche and I. LWC only comments on the ones I nominate; almost never on Epeefleche. You CANNOT say that I can't ever AfD an article just because LWC doesn't like them (and apparently he doesn't; he's voted "Keep" in every AfD I've started in the last two months, regardless of topic). Banning me from nominating an AfD on a Catholic school in Texas because LWC bumbled over there with his "all schools are notable" position (a position which numerous editors have told him on both his talk page and at the AfD is unsubstantiated by policy) is completely punitive and frankly nonsensical. If the interaction ban goes through the way I'd hoped, LWC can't comment on AfDs I start, and we won't have this problem. It could also be solved by blocking LWC, or by topic-banning him from school-related AfDs. Cullen, you need to stop blaming me exclusively. Why didn't you post a message on LWC's talk page that said, "Why'd you comment on these AfDs? You're stirring up more trouble" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Historiography

Hey thanks! Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"gr"?

I notice a fair number of your edit summaries are "gr". What's that mean? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages: Edit summary legend - The meaning is "I have fixed the grammar of a sentence or sentences." Northamerica1000 16:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Floru

Sorry, but "it survived a BLP"? Drmies (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, got cut off there...survived an AfD and is an unreferenced BLP (I was challenging the PROD while changing the "unreferenced" tag to "unreferenced BLP" tag). Since it's already been PRODded and AfDed once; it's time to go back to AfD. Immediately after contesting the PROD, I nominated it for AfD Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Why did you delete my comment at AN/I? Your edit summary doesn't give any comprehensible reason, and I can't understand what you hope to gain by this disruptive edit. Please do not delete it again, or I shall make a formal complaint. RolandR (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I accidentally stepped on it due to an edit conflict... Why would I delete a comment in a discussion I'm not even party to? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason my edit summary doesn't make sense is that when I accidentally deleted your comment, I was posting to another thread. The edit summary given fits with my comment on your thread. Again, I repeat I had no intention to remove your comment Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. I wasn't following the other discussion, and was upset when I noticed the removal of my comment in the thread I was following. RolandR (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Purplebackpack89,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I don't live in the Bay Area, I just edit articles from there... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see.... Sorry for the spam – just trying to cast a wide net :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat

I just posted the following on their talk page:

I'm on the verge of asking for my bit back. The next one of you or Purplebackpack who brings a baseless complaint to ANI gets blocked. This is the end of the line. There is no sanction on PBP that prevents him voting at AFDs. Do not refer to him, respond to him or post about him at any forum. Just ignore each other and you will find your wikipedia experience much less stressful. There will be no further warnings.

I acknowledge that you are blameless in this latest case but I want to be very clear. You should not respond to Luciferwildcat, nor should you comment on them in any shape way or form. Just ignore them completely. There will be no further warnings. Just blocks. And I will be exceedingly irked if I have to ask for my bit back. I also acknowledge that you have been the slightly more sinned against then sinning yourself but this has to stop and this is the only practical way to end it as you both find it difficult (impossible) to not rise to each others comments. Spartaz 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Userfied

Per request on my talk page, I've userfied the two pages requested:

• User:Purplebackpack89/Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues
• User:Purplebackpack89/List of Ohio Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues

—Tom Morris (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. They should be integrated within the next week Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Our Lady of Lourdes

Sorry, no — I've never successfully closed anything. The last time I tried, I accidentally closed the entire day's AFD log. Since it's been speedy deleted, anyone may close it, since the decision has already been made. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

I'm very concerned that you're not getting the point of AfD, particularly in regards to schools. You don't seem to have a particularly strong success rate of having your vote agree with a consensus decision. Looking at your talkpage, here, it seems that you've had some problems for a while.

I really need for you to pay attention to these points:

• It is not WP:CLEANUP, a place where you send articles that could do with some improvement.
• It is not about winning. It's clear from this talkpage that you've got some problems in your attitude in this regard. Further, your badgering of keep votes in many of the AfD's in which you've been involved seem to show an underlying desire to "win"; it's not about that. You are badgering, by the way; very few other AfD participants keep nitpicking at what keep voters have said for so long that people have to keep AfD's on their watchlist.
• WP:BEGIN, while optional, is an important part of the process. If you don't have the time to go through with it, then you are starting with an assumption that the article is problematic and leaving the investigation requirements in the hands of the people who have to respond to what could be a frivolous AfD. If you don't have time to go through with WP:BEGIN, then tag the article and move along.

I think that you seriously need to think about the following as a way forward:

• Tag articles, work through them with their main contributors or send them to WP:CLEANUP before moving it to AfD. The one article that I have ever been keen to see deleted was SGHS Rowing Club, where I tried to discuss it through with the main contributor before someone else moved through the AfD.
• Leave keep votes to stand as they are unless you have a serious issue that you want to bring up with them, in which case, take it to their talkpage. In the end it might not matter, anyway, you might still "win" without making people think you're nitpicking or having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT issues.
• Commit to WP:BEFORE, and indicate that you have done so (and what you have done) in your rationale for any AfD nominations you make from here so that people can WP:AGF and not scramble around doing WP:BEFORE for you.

I think these three points are completely reasonable and are, in fact, what many other editors are already doing. It's not unreasonable to expect this of you. ˜danjel 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In short, no. Actually, with regard to schools, the Wisconsin one is the only one that's been so much as relisted of the more than dozen I've nominated, so there's your "success rate". I've been nominating, and I think I pretty clearly understand what is entailed. I will not commit to WP:BEFORE 100% of the time; it is optional and is an attempt to unnecessarily burden nominators. Nor will I commit to cleanup standards; you're operating under the assumption that any article can be cleaned up enough to pass an AfD. There are some articles that can never be cleaned up enough and others that would just be a waste of time to clean up when the vast majority of our vital articles aren't up to GA yet. Your schools are one of those two. And if a vote of any stripe doesn't get it, I will explain why policy supports my position over theirs. And you claim I'm badgering you, then write a long diatribe on my page that is a borderline personal attack. I'm afraid you're starting to sound a lot like Dream Focus, so I suggest you stop badgering me, before you end up blocked like Dream Focus. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I make no assumption that any article can be cleaned up. I said above that I think that you should try other methods before (I even italicised "before") sending them to AfD. What's the rush?

"Borderline personal attack"? Oversensitive much? Ah well, it was worth a try. ˜danjel 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you again deleted a comment I posted at your talk page, possibly without reading it. The point is that this isn't a competence issue...just because you don't like mine and Epeefleche's AfDs doesn't make us incompetent. You've racked the rhetoric on this far too high...almost to Dream Focus levels. I again ask you to stop claiming that Epeefleche and I are incompetent just because you don't like our AfDs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I removed your comments because, with deference to WP:OWNTALK, I'm not really keen on people telling me how much their feelings are hurt.

I have not claimed that Epeefleche is incompetent. I have said, in the past, that s/he was rushed, and s/he seems to have taken that on board and modified his approach to AfD. Brilliant. On the other hand, you seem to be going out of your way to deflect/resist criticism.

Many people, on the other hand, have said that your attitude in regards to AfD is problematic, evidenced in your badgering. Your slipups, such as saying that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" and that you don't need to care for WP:BEGIN add further weight to my concerns over your WP:COMPETENCE.

These are the points, therefore:

1. Your attitude, evidenced in badgering;
2. Your understanding of key approaches to AfD, such as WP:BEFORE;
3. Your serious misunderstanding of notability approaches, evidenced in your statement that primary schools are "inherently non-notable".

Do something about these issues and I'm sure that life will be easier for everyone. ˜danjel 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. The people who have problems happen to do so primarily because they vote keep and I vote delete, not because my deletion discussions violate policy, which they don't. And it's been reaffirmed hundreds of times that primary schools are non-notable, so to call that a serious misunderstanding is, well, a serious misunderstanding. See the common outcomes page. And why are you attacking me when it's Epeefleche that created most of those? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that the only people with whom you have a problem are the people with whom you disagree, and this is the problem. WP:OUTCOMES says the following:

Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD.

Emphasis added.

There is a clear difference between that and primary schools are "inherently non-notable". Furthermore, there is a clear difference between "delete" and "merged or redirected".

So, basicly, you're working from a misunderstanding of policy regarding notability, a lack of application of WP:BEGIN and this generates your attitude. My three points above still stand. ˜danjel 04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is not "attacking" you. This is me pointing out an issue that's causing conflict, and not just with me, but apparently with many people as evidenced by this talkpage. The difference between you and Epeefleche is that s/he got the point and modified his/her approach, as I have already stated. ˜danjel 04:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quit bringing up BEGIN. It doesn't have to be done, especially since I didn't nominate the Australian school for deletion. And when you say "many people", you're mostly referring to people who vote keep and never want anything deleted, ever. And if people have problems with my school-related deletions, how come they never get kept? Your third point is baloney, your second point is half baloney and half irrelevant, and your first point is just hypocritical Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not just about schools. If it was just about schools, I would have used a longer title like "School AfDs".

I'll take your post above to indicate that you have no intention of changing your approach. ˜danjel 05:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NCAA basketball champion articles

Please don't move any articles about NCAA men's basketball champions, as you did to List of Ohio Valley Conference men's basketball champions and List of Southern Conference men's basketball champions. You are incorrect when saying that "Southern Conference men's basketball tournament" is a "better name" for two reasons: (1) The article comprises both regular season and tournament champions, not just tournament champions, and (2) even if it were a better name, you're still mis-capitalizing the article since the whole tournament spelled out should be capitalized (but that's beside the point since they shouldn't be moved in the first place). Before you arbitrarily decide what a "better" name of an article is, leave a message at Talk:WikiProject College basketball where others who have worked extensively on the project can chime in. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's two very good reason's why the article should be at the title I put it 1) If it's at your title, it's going to get deleted again; and 2) Every other conference with an article like that has the title under the tournament. Furthermore, if it weren't for me, the articles would still be deleted...why are you complaining about the article's title instead of thanking me for getting them off the ashheap? And it is not necessary to get a project's approval for anything that goes on with the project Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

˜danjel 04:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, I already commented... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference

"Reduce to a day or two: unless MSK or Risker shoots an elephant in their pajamas" - Am I supposed to be in my pajamas? Is the elephant in pajamas? Is the elephant in my pajamas? Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny (as I'm sure I'm failing), and I'm sure this is in reference to something, but I have no idea what. Could you let me in on the joke please? Risker (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know" is a famous quip by Groucho Marx, who is frequently quoted by Bugs. No, you don't have to shoot an elephant in your pajamas. Yes, I do believe Bugs' block should be reduced Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps actually using one's own words instead of quoting a notably sarcastic comic might be helpful. I am relieved, at least, that I guessed the bit about the elephant in my pajamas, though. Risker (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

steak-frites?

Purple, not sure what you meant to do, but you seem to have created a new page, with just a redirect back to itself. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoopsadaisy...meant to redirect it to Steak frites Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Inherently non-notable" - don't post to my talkpage

I have tried to work this out with you, but it is pretty clear that you are never going to compromise on this issue where your position is wrong and deleterious to the purpose of wikipedia. Therefore, I'm going to ask that you stop posting to my talkpage. Your comments are therefore not helpful and you are not welcome on my talkpage per WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN. ˜danjel 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't wrong, and you are far too vested in this Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken you to Dispute Resolution as you continue to keep harping about the fact that I'm wrong; when numerous others have told you I'm not wrong. BTW, I had to post the DR notice; it was mandated I do so Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)