User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 2

User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing List of counties in IL

Thanks for catching the J.Q. Adams mistake in List of counties in Illinois!! Unbelievable!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of We Like Sportz

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article We Like Sportz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non-notable non-single.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of We Like Sportz

I have nominated We Like Sportz, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Like Sportz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of We Like Sportz

I have nominated We Like Sportz, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Like Sportz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating BLP policy

Please do not add trivia to articles. Especially unsourced trivia to articles which are WP:BLP (biographies of living people). You need to demonstrate that the content you are adding is not adding WP:UNDUE weight to the article by adding a trivial list which is not covered by multiple reliable third party publications. Just because you saw it somewhere on television does not make it notable. Just because other articles have the SAME PROBLEM does not give you the right to add that problem to other articles! Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. JBsupreme (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my citations are bunk? BTW, I think you're too trigger-happy...you and Rwiggum. I have reported you, 'cuz you're too trigger-happy...and remember, I didn't start this, so why are you bagging on me? You have jumped to several wrong conclusions and are apparantly going on a witch hunt for your own amusement Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I welcome the advisement of more senior editors on this project regarding your trivia crusade. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Total loaded word there...FYI, I do watch SNL, but the information I posted to the Samberg page came from [snl.jt.com], not my own personal research Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Atlantic Monthly Top 100

I have nominated Atlantic Monthly Top 100, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Monthly Top 100. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activity on SNL Celebrity Jeopardy

Hello: I see that, at least relative to the age of this project, and to the length of time I've been a part of it (even if my edit count might not reflect this), you are new to Wikipedia. I wish to first extend to you my greetings, and hope that all is going well for you as you become further acquainted with the project.

I have also noticed that a bit of a dispute has broken out between you and another user over some content on the page mentioned in my subject header above. I would like you to stop by the discussion page and have a look through my comments and suggestions; I am striving to tie the ends up on the issue(s) at hand so everyone can move on with their lives.

Additionally, and I suggest this with all respect, this may be an appropriate time to consider a short period away from editing, after this issue is resolved. All of us editors need one once in a while, and if you have a look at my talk page, you'll see that everyone has issues they are passionate about, and unavoidably get into conflict with others about. Perhaps, take a week, take two weeks - head out to the country, go to the beach, do whatever you do outside of wikipedia. Come back after, and by then all this shall have passed over, and frankly, I probably won't even remember anything about it!

All the best, Raj Fra 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Crayola crayon colors

The colors now in the Crayola article are direct from the company itself. Unless you can find a source for color values better than Crayola's website, please do not change them. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are patently NOT the colors that appear in a box of crayons. If you look at an actual crayon against the display on the web, as I have, you will notice that many of the colors on the website are too pastel. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, these colors aren't of the crayon itself but the color of the mark it makes on paper. These values from the website seem to be the only of the color information available. Just coming up with numbers you think look more like the crayon is original research and not acceptable by Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll get a source. But please, take a look at the purple mark on paper...you'll find that the website's colors are way off, and therefore shouldn't be used (not to mention the credibility issues it raises by using a site promoting a product). BTW, is it just me or do the values based on the screen actually come from another approximation? I know the ones on List of Crayola crayon colors do. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The values of the colors from List of Crayola crayon colors were determined by getting the RGB value from the images of the color swath of each color on that linked website page in Photoshop. I didn't come up with them myself, but I checked a good sample of them and came up with the exact same numbers on that page. I don't have a box of Crayola crayons on hand, but maybe I'll buy one and see what values I get if I try to scan in similar marks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from my talk page) Your values are still there in the history. I'll try to get some other opinions on how these colors should be determined. Perhaps, it might be best just to not have this chart of colors since it really is impossible to accurately show what a crayon color mark is in the RGB space. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to confine this discussion to ONE talk page Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep it here. - Dougie WII (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I picked up a 64-pack of Crayola crayons, I'll be taking some pictures of them first for the article then try to get color samples and see how they compare to what's on the list page over the next couple of days. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:-D
The colors produced by these crayons are so variegated, it's impossible to say one digital color value is correct. I'll try to just make a self-made table graphic with the real crayon marks scanned in themselves to replace this table. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I replaced the colors with actual self-made images of marks from the crayons that I scanned in. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coo coo. You can see what I mean about the colors being somewhat different. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been a great discussion to have on the List of Crayola crayon colors discussion board. Crayonsman (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to transcribe it there, I'm perfectly fine with that Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion copied to discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Crayola_crayon_colors Crayonsman (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Brothers at Meta's 1000 Articles

Hi... It's been a long time ago, but I think I dropped it because it was multiply disputed whether the Wright Brothers were first to invent the airplane. It was also Western- (or American-) centric. I don't really mind if you add it back, but you might want to mention it on the talk page. -- Yekrats (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up on the talk page...I suggest tossing an obscure Western math guy such as Euler for Les Wright. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"(Lincoln, Wright Bros, Jefferson, and Franklin)" Out of those, I think Franklin could arguably have had the greatest impact. He was a prolific inventor, writer, and statesman. I'm not convinced that the Wrights were the first to fly, but they *were* the first to patent and exploit flight. ;-) I would also like to see a great American writer be on the list, and I think it would have to be Edgar Allen Poe, who is widely considered the father of the short story as well as the detective story.
Part of the problem is that the Meta crowd wants a more world-wide vision of the list, and these additions would probably require a Western-oriented article to come off the list. -- Yekrats (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very unfortunate. On authors, I think the consensus is Mark Twain is the best representative of America, though a strong argument could be made for Franklin and Jefferson to be included as authors instead of politicians, which needs to have 10-20 more spaces, IMO. I'm actually arguing for inclusion of Jefferson and Franklin as philos/soc scientists, which is, I believe, their strongest case. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Enemies

First off all, sorry about the content deletion. I probably should have copied and pasted your text back to the other spot rather than doing a straight revert. Now, the content: They are antagonists, but they're characters as well. I notice you're not adding Wario to your list of antagonists, and that confuses me a bit. I'll also admit that under the standard definition of enemies, Waluigi and Bowser do belong in that section. However, the name of the section is ambiguous, as that is not what the section is actually for. Rather, it is for the list of throwaway enemies Nintendo sprinkles in their levels. As a suggestion to throw out, maybe the "Characters" section should be split into three groups instead of two: "Protagonists", "Antagonists", and "Supporting"?
BAPACop (converse) 04:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that's a good idea. Wario can join him in the antagonists section if you want. Where does Kong fall? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DK...good question. He seems to fluctuate between being a bad guy and a good guy, but considering he's generally portrayed as a good guy nowadays, I'd put him in protagonists. The only question now: How do we make the move? Considering the large amount of vandalism on the page, I think this conversation should be copied and added to the section on the Talk page of the article, so it can be referenced when the actual change is made. It's very likely that the change will be reverted at least once, so... Seeing as you're involved in this discussion, I'll wait for your approval before I copy your messages onto the Talk page, then I'll make the change in the article. Or, you can do it yourself. I'll make the change in the article sometime tomorrow if you can't reply. BAPACop (converse) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want with the article and this talk section Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got around to making the changes. They may be reverted by the time you see them though, hopefully the talk page conversation will have comments from the reverter in it. BAPACop (converse) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in userspace

Hello Purplebackpack89. I removed the image of Samus from one of your subpages because Wikipedia's policy on non-free media states that it's only allowed in articles. For more information, see WP:USER#Images on user pages. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't put ANY pictures in that page, or just can't use that particular one? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some images are free and others are non-free. Non-free images, like that image of Samus, can only be used in articles, while free images can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's image use policy for more information. Hope that answered your question. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK...the million-dollar question...where do you find out if something is free or non-free? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the image's description page. If it has a fair-use rationale template (it'll say something like "Fair-use" or "Non-free" at the top and it'll look something like this or this), then it's non-free (i.e. copyrighted or trademarked). If it doesn't, then it's free and you can use it however you like. If you're looking for a boatload of free images then I recommend you search Wikimedia Commons; everything there is free to use on any Wikimedia project. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Royal Pains

Oh, sorry, I hadn't noticed the new page. I see now. Sorry 'bout that. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pikachu. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Discuss the issue here, not through edit summaries. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the war, I just made the original edit. I've only made two reverts, the other guy made three Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It was tehnically you who started it as an edit war is considered to have started when a reversion is re-reverted (or to put it more simply, when a change that has been reverted is restored by the same user). Per WP:3RR: 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR. Instead of continuing to revert to try and make your point, take it to the discussion page as I previously indicated. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reverted it since you called me on the edit war, though I may when I get support for my edit with the several-paragraph-long post I made to the talk section. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you get consensus and agreement on the talk page, then restoring it back would be fine and not considered to be partaking in an edit war since the other user would presumably agree with your proposed changes. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

While I'm glad to see an enthusiastic editor, I think there are real problems in getting the article to GA. I think the section that needs the most work is the part about the war. It's late right now, but I think the biggest problem is that it is sometimes repetitious and is not in chronological order. It starts with "Secession Winter", which is fine but the next section "Fighting begins: 1861–1862" backtracks a little and then, despite its title, doesn't take us past May 1861. The info in this section is unsourced and in many cases inaccurae. The article then skips to 1862 with the EP, 1863 with the Gettysburg Address, to 1864 with the election, and then back to 1861 with the actual war. In any event, hopefully tomorrow I can add some specifics of the article or the article's discussion page that might be helpful to you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some steps in resolving the problem
  1. Remove the dates from "the war begins", and probably merge with "Conducting the War Effort"
  2. Move "Conducting the War Effort" to between "The War Begins" and the "Emancipation Proclamation"
  3. Remove the McClellan reference from the Proclamation section.

Probably will need a little more work besides that. My main concern is the two remaining "citation needed" tags...from what I can tell, they killed the last two GA efforts more than any content issues. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my Talk Page, but could you also have another look at the Lincoln Talk Page as I think you read the wrong topic. Thanks. --BSTemple (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln GAC

I have been performing the GA review for Abraham Lincoln. You can see my initial comments at Talk:Abraham Lincoln/GA1. You may begin to address them. I will come back to complete this review in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have stopped working on Abraham Lincoln. I hope to see continued progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you address the concerns of the GAC. Then, renominate it and contact me. If you have addressed all my concerns, I am likely to pass it. There is a lot of work to do on that article and I am not confident it is all going to be addressed. I would reopen, if I felt it was a sure GA. However this article is not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, several other editors are engaged in adding references to the underreferenced sections, which I believe was your main critique. Part of the problem is there is a GA effort and a effort to get it all the way to FA. I personally feel that GA first, stop to catch breath, then FA. I can't do as much as I could have when I nommed, because my Lincolniana isn't on me right now. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBL Hall of Fame

Would you consider redirecting this article to National Basketball League right now?

The article is obviously not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd, instead of having to wait 7 days. .

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting's perfectly fine with me. It should redirect to National Basketball League (Australasia) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you. I find redirecting easier and much less work :) I appreciate your efforts:

Re: Quick question

If an article has a lot of material copied from another site, scattered here and there, {{non-free}} might be used. You can use {{copypaste}} if there's a whole section that you think is in violation of copyright. If it's a close but not exact violation of copyright (which would fall under WP:PLAG) then you can use {{Close paraphrase}}. Those are all for suspected copyright violations.

If an article contains material confirmed to be copied from another source, you can use {{copyvio|url=http://example.org}} and include the URL to the original source, this also blanks out the article to protect Wikipedia. If there are external links pointing to material that is in violation of a copyright, use {{copyvioel}} in the external links section. Or put a {{copyvio link}} tag directly after the link itself.

If you want to warn someone when they are inserting material in violation of copyrights, and they are a new user, you can use the {{subst:welcome - Copyright}} template to welcome them and warn them at the same time. Otherwise, you can leave {{subst:uw-copyright}} to warn them that it is forbidden to add such material, or {{subst:uw-copyright-link}} to warn them about linking to material that violates copyrights.

If you want info about image copyrights, that's a whole different subject and very complicated, and I still don't understand every bit of those rules yet.

By the way, I love your username. It reminds me of one of my daughter's favorite cartoons. If you have any other questions feel free to ask, thanks! -- Atama頭 01:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on all fronts and back(pack)s Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Group Stage (2nd place)

Hi! The following line from the template page better explains than the comment I did when updating: "Where a group's number is shaded, the team that finishes runner-up from the group is guaranteed a play-off spot, although that team may differ from the one shown in this table." This situation applies to Ukraine. Lejman (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for it, but it is kind of confusing. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers

Perhaps you think that deletions of unsourced information about a living person are "utterly uncalled for", but that opinion is contrary to Wikipedia policy (see WP:V, [{WP:BLP]] and WP:citing sources).

Furthermore, List of bow tie wearers has been nominated for deletion at WP:AfD 4 times, was deleted on one of those occasions, and has been through deletion review twice. Two factors that have led to demands to delete it were (1) the inclusion of unsourced information and (2) the inclusion of names not backed by reliable sources indicating that the person's bow-tie wearing has been widely noted. Given that history and WP's policies, when the name of a living person is added without any hint of a source, it gets deleted on sight.

The sources you supplied do support the view that Oliphant is a bow-tie wearer, but neither of the sources you cited is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Please supply a reliable source or the entry will be deleted again. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringtone (song)

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. I have reverted your edit. Please can you show me the guidelines that establish a song's notability because of a music video? If such guidelines exist then you are right and I am wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the point is instead of speedy redirecting, you should have started an AFD. As Frige points out, there is significant precedent that if a song by a major artist has been released as a single with a music video, it is significant, and if it's not a single or doesn't have a music video, it's not. For example, the song Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) is notable because it was released as a single and has a music video, while We Like Sportz is non-notable and redirects to the album Incredibad. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

In response to what you've said about Lincoln (where I had read the talk page), why doesn't the same argument apply to Sarah Palin in the Palin page? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I notice that that isn't tagged as a disam yet...better fix that. You may want to bring it up on the talk page of Palin and/or Lincoln. I believe Lincoln is similar to Jefferson and Franklin Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln is different from Jefferson and Franklin. The commonest uses of a name consisting of a single word is when it's a placename. Places called "Jefferson" or "Franklin" are named after Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin respectively, so it's not inappropriate that a reader should be reminded of that when finding his way through disambiguation. In the case of "Lincoln", however, the placename in England came first. If you're studying medieval history, and look up "Lincoln", there is only one possibility you expect. History matters. Different cases also have to be treated differently according to what the possible alternatives are. For example "Biden" or "Eisenhower" are both surnames borne (in wikipedia) only by members of a single family, so putting the famous person first is not objectionable. Context also matters.
Looking a little further, I doscover that most of the places called "Franklin" in Australia, New Zealand and Canada are named after John Franklin. This makes me dissatisfied with the Franklin page, which I think ought to reflect that in some way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to upgrade Sarah Palin. I was rather trying to use her as a reductio ad absurdum. For me Michael Palin is far more significant. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you telling me the ideas for the Franklin page? You should put it on the Franklin talk page, not here. Same with the Palin page, which I'll leave for the time being. I firmly believe in two principles for disam pages like Franklin
  1. Organized with the most important (AKA most hit, top priority on a project; but not necessarily first or earliest) at the top. For Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin, it's been established that the most important is the famous American. If Sarah Palin runs in 2012, she will likely become the primary topic of the Palin page.
  2. Lots of links without large descriptions (they can be found in the individual article)

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that putting entries in a logical order is overall far more user-friendly than attempting to prioritise on the basis of hit-rates or importance. I think that your policy would inevitably degenerate into POV issues, if it hasn't already. I don't regard "most hit" as being the same as "most important", and it's utterly unrealistic to expect dab page editors to check out hit counts every time they create a page. Readers don't know about hit-rates nor about the editor's assessment of importance; to organise on that basis just seems to be a random jumble. To say "it's been established" is actually the view of quite a samll number of editors. If Sarah Palin wins in 2012 I shall leave the planet. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton

Hello! Your submission of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Calmer Waters 04:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

Roosevelt

Hello. I must admit confusion as to why you think Roosevelt can not be a stand alone article. Especially if you have taken the time to look through some of the other surname articles that exist. While still new and under construction, it already provides more sources and information than most all other surname articles. Roosevelt also has notability, as the famous people that hold it. The Roosevelt family page, though, is not a proper destination for origins and such, and would surely be removed in time. Is the issue really the painting, then? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what I meant was merge the coat of arms article into the Roosevelt Family article, which hasn't been done yet. Vous comprenez? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you suggested the merger at this time. It was also you that tagged it for deletion. So my lack of understanding still persists as to why you believe this particular article can not exist as stand alone. Initially you said that you thought I created the article to promote a painting and thus wanted the article deleted. I was curious if that is the only reason, or if you truly believe that Roosevelt is a surname that lacks any notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that. What I do believe is that the Coat of Arms lack notability. Merging two articles together doesn't mean you dislike both of them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was why I thought the article was poorly named and should be made a surname page. It was not my suggestion on creating a purely coat of arms centred article. While it has been decided all the information be merged into the Roosevelt family page, expanding that article to cover another Van Rosevelt family that may not even be realted seems odd. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate you. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit warring

Edit warring is a blockable offense. Please discuss controversial changes with one another on the relevant articles' talk pages before engaging in such actions in the future. I was just made aware of what you two were doing. If you have any questions, please let me know, and I can clarify.

This is in regard to the Palm Springs and Riverside article talk pages, where you were a party to edit warring. Killiondude (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on House's talk page before I reverted. I am OK with him changing the IE ratings, but he also reverted ratings I made as part of WikiProject California and SoCal, of which he is not a member and I am. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant who is a member of what WikiProject, anyone can rate anything for any WikiProject, they don't have to join. You (or any WikiProject) do not own articles or their talk pages. Jeni (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I was rating, not claiming ownership; he was claiming ownership by virtue of IE. It should be noted that most of my ratings are 1) Previously unrated; or 2) Ironing out inconsistencies Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter who is "right", edit warring can still lead to a block unless you're reverting what is clearly vandalism. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're beating a dead horse. It never got to 3, and it hasn't been edited in days Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPCities criteria

Just found the message you posted to a WPCities talk page. All our faults for not being alert and responding. To be honest, if I'd been you and there had been nil reaction, I would have given a "heads-up" to some or all of the project members so as to be certain (which is what I will do, asap).

The extension of the "top" category as you've proposed (the relevance of the "meta" rating is unexplained) is a potential minefield, since it involves differing national and regional perspectives (and pride). For example, Sydney might be "top" in NSW, but internationally, that's iffy - Shanghai or Riyadh probably have more international weight. IMO, of course, and that's argument kicks off. Note that at least one other project has opted out of importance ratings for this reason. The current criteria, which are still as displayed, might appear to be anomalous but think of it as "low", "mid" and "high" with "top" as a special reserved category for national capitals.

Regards, Folks at 137 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word of clarification on the "Meta" rating...if you go here, you'll find a list of 1,000 articles every Wikipedia should have. This list had been debated by Wikipedians all over the world, but is now fairly stable. There are 44 cities on the list, including several that aren't capitals. I'm saying we just use that list rather than fight over our own list. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to the reassessment of those cities mentioned and have reverted all changes, which you did without sufficient discussion or consensus. I have no idea what criteria were used to determine the "meta" rating, and therefore it cannot be used to determine the priority/importance rating in the wikiproject. You simply need far more solid criteria, such as status as a national/state capital, population, etc, to establish it's criteria in the importance ratings. The opinion of random editors contributing to some "meta wiki" simply doesn't cut it. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash, you shouldn't have reverted. In my latest talk edit at Cities, I give five reasons why those cities should be top. Your main reason for reverting is because you haven't heard of Meta Wikimedia, which isn't a good reason. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, my reverts were warranted. YOU violated the trust of the community to blatantly imposing your own will without letting consensus form first. You simply can't post something on a page and decide just a few days later that, because no one responded to you, that you should just move ahead. I still remain STRONGLY OPPOSED to your proposal, and WILL fight it. To put it simply, you're just very, very wrong. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A)WP:BOLD, B) you had days to comment and you didn't. That ain't my fault, that's 100% your fault. If you got beef, take it to AN. You argument holds less water than a cup turned upside down Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup flag

Hi Purplebackpack89! The flag you chose for the 2010 WikiCup was removed because it was already taken by another editor. Please select a new flag before this Friday, that is "under a free license that is of a (current or historical) continent, country, state, county or city and has NOT already been chosen by another contestant." Thank you, iMatthew talk at 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. You have to pick a flag. iMatthew talk at 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you adding it? I said no... iMatthew talk at 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll put up a different flag. If the Aeroflot, an airline, can be used, I would assume a ship can be used Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Log Cabin Wilderness Camp

An article that you have been involved in editing, Log Cabin Wilderness Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log Cabin Wilderness Camp. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]