User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5

User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

No editing was done by me

As far as I remember, no edit on the said page was done by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.91.117 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might not have been you personally; probably was somebody else near you using the same IP. If you don't want this to keep happening, get an account! Purplebackpack89 15:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Giffords

What is your source re her death? Adambro (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported on the National Public Radio newcast about five minutes ago Purplebackpack89 19:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yet to see it confirmed on web sources. Adambro (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPR has confirmed in on their sites. I have posted the link on the talk page Purplebackpack89 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ArthurnBuster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ArthurnBuster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BusterBaxter.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BusterBaxter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago removing things all the time

I read about him removing perfectly good content for no reason. He keeps removing mine also, despite a clear citation and indisputable proof. Just letting you know. 78.144.145.141 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you comment on the bad removal he made at Son of Stan? Purplebackpack89 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked it was multiple editors removing your addition at Sing Sing. I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent the removal of your material as being solely my initiative. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it's the exact opposite at Son of Stan...several editors adding content, and one disruptive editor (you, Don) removing content without consensus Purplebackpack89 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation reported

I am placing this notice on your page because of your prior involvement with User:Markglad and the article Thomas Jefferson. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurring of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears that four editors(including yourself) have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort so I have placed this matter before the administrator's noticeboard. If there is anything you can add to the report there, please do so. nonsense with thisWikiManOnespeaking drivel! 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

  1. Portal:United States
  2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
  3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
  4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McSorley's Old Ale House

Even in the mid-19th century (or, perhaps, especially in the mid-19th century) a politician wouldn't get very far if they never went into a saloon, even a non-drinking politician. A lot of politics (especially retail local politics) was done in bars and ale houses. I don't have a cite for Lincoln visiting McSorley's, but considering that in 1860 he gave a noted speech at the Great Hall at Cooper Union around the corner, it's not terribly unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it still should be sourced. I'm not saying it didn't necessarily happen, I am saying that it should be sourced, as should the other celebs Purplebackpack89 21:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, but my point was that picking Lincoln out of that list of luminaries for the reason you put in the edit summary wasn't very convincing. As a compromise, I've moved the "citation needed" tag to the end of the paragraph, to cover that entire list instead of just Lincoln. I hope that's OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me Purplebackpack89 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

Please WP:AGF; I'm just following the standards that have been set forth by the appropriate WikiProjects. --Rschen7754 01:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite standards, please? Why shouldn't we add Western and Vine; Western even has its own Wikipedia article Purplebackpack89 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard has been to limit junction lists to Interstate, US Highway, state highway and select county road junctions only on non-freeway segments. See Wikipedia:CASH#Major_intersections_or_Exit_list for details. Imzadi 1979 → 01:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CASH: Not every at-grade junction is listed in the junction list. The current standard is as follows: In order to be listed as an at-grade intersection, the road must be a county route, state route, Interstate, or U.S. Route or must be marked as major by several map sources.
WP:USRD/STDS (which automatically takes precedence and is a stricter standard): All interchanges shall be included in the list. At-grade intersections with numbered highway routes should be included; at-grade intersections with non-numbered roads generally should not.
Granted, that means that we've been lenient in applying the USRD standards to CASH; perhaps we need to tighten down. This would never fly in the more well-run state highway WikiProjects (WP:MISH, WP:NYSR for example). --Rschen7754 01:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read it, Western and Vine clearly meet CASH; whether they meet USRD or not is open to debate Purplebackpack89 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USRD/STDS trumps WP:CASH regardless. The way I read it, the CASH standard needs to be changed to match the USRD one. --Rschen7754 02:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just picking on me because the CASH standards suck? Purplebackpack89 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) You're not the only user who has done this; b) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because the California junction lists are messed up already doesn't mean that I want them to get worse. --Rschen7754 02:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oz characters

In their day, the books were a phenomenon on the level of Harry Potter, and there are full articles on many, many of the Harry Potter characters. The Thompson books became lesser known now because they were allowed to go out of print in the 1960s due to slow sales. Deleting these characters, especially Sir Hokus, is a sort of "notability myopia." I don't believe Wikipedia is myopic by intent, just by natural course. For example, every recent Broadway play or musical has an entry, but go back to the turn of the century and only a few have articles. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that 100 years from now that musicals that have been largely forgotten by then should have their articles deleted, considering that Wikipedia does not have the limits of a print encyclopedia. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to delete every Oz character article...I haven't even considered deleting the majority of articles. It seems to me that the articles fail notability, something you should consider remedying. And with regard to the Harry Potter series, there are eight characters with their own articles. Eight. The rest are combined into articles dealing with Hogwarts, Dumbledore's Army, and the Death Eaters (an approach that could be used for Oz characters too). There are more Oz characters who would continue to have their own articles from Book #2 alone than there are Harry Potter articles period. I'm actually being generous...there are some people who would have nominated more articles Purplebackpack89 16:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that a year and a half ago you wanted to revive Lucario with no sources, and now am nominating characters for deletion. You have learned the ways of the wiki. ;) Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dar Tucker

The article Dar Tucker has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RadioFan (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added, and the PROD tag has been removed Purplebackpack89 16:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Merges

Hi! I'd try this myself, but I don't trust myself enough to not screw it up, so I thought I'd go to the proposer on the AfD. Most of the articles have been merged, but the following have not yet undergone the process:

I'm not to concerned with what happens either way, but I thought that it couldn't hurt to point these out to you in case they're eventually forgotten and ignored. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to them in the next couple of days. Been doing a couple every day. BTW, if you believe that there are any other ones that need to be merged, don't hesitate to nominate them Purplebackpack89 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Although, given the outcome of the AfD, it may be better to just be bold and merge ones that obviously would have fit in with the larger group.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All merges have been completed. Another editor had mentioned "tiers" of Oz characters. Anything in the fourth-tier I've nominated for merge, anything in the third tier I think could very well be nominated. Here is where I think the tiers fall:

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for IBM Award

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TY

Thank you for your kind suggestion on uploading. Will try it when I get brave enough to try again.  :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It'll be easier after the first few. PS: One small thing: the O in Of needs to be capitalized in your signature for the talk page link to work. Probably not a major problem, 'cept when someone clicks on your sig they don't get anything. Just change:

[[User:DocOfSoc|<b style= "color:#075;"><i>DocOfSoc</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:DocOfSoc|<span style="color:purple;">Talk</span>]] OOOPS! to

[[User:DocOfSoc|<b style= "color:#075;"><i>DocOfSoc</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:DocOfSoc|<span style="color:purple;">Talk</span>]] Sometimes things can be so unnecessarily finicky! Purplebackpack89 21:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—'o=Joy=has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! DocOfSoc (talk)
Mmmm...food... Purplebackpack89 04:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Progress in Mid-March

Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol request

You now have autopatrol rights. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled for any comments concerning this request, and take a moment to review the features of this right at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. We had a power outage here for several hours, and after putting the generator on I forgot to go back to it and click the 'assign rights' button. Fixed now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oz characters

When my block was made in a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, it is most certainly a valid reason for objection, and I must insist that you restore the list that you deleted in my absence. The redlinks were created back in the day when ever Masters of the Universe character, for example, had an entry. Because policy on fictional characters is different now, it does not mean that the characters should not even appear in a list.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda does actually. Can you point to a policy that clearly supports having long meaningless lists of non-notable characters? Because I can point to a number of policies that would (i.e. not having long meaningless list, GNG, etc.). Not to mention I started doing what I was doing well before you were blocked, and you didn't say a word. I could have even deleted all of the list in one fell swoop using BOLD. When you are blocked, you forfeit the right to participate in any discussions for the duration. I took a look at your block, and unblock requests were denied four or five times, so I doubt that it was made wrongfully. In addition, you talk about it being a "work in progess"...the only person who had added any meaningful amount of content was me. If you still think I have acted in error, get another set of eyes on this...I'm reasonably sure they'll agree with me. Purplebackpack89 04:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't contract the arbitration committee about you. I contacted them about User:toddst1, whose stated reason for blocking me was WP:EL, when there was nothing in those guidelines that applied to the situation. It's only relevant here because it's the reason that I didn't stop you. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for lists of non-notable characters. The aforementioned Masters of the Universe characters are still on Wikipedia, just not each with their own articles. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are, kinda. All the characters who are one the lists but don't or won't have short written blurbs are non-notable. Also, two things about the Masters of the Universe list: a) It doesn't just list them straight. It has a one-to-two sentence blurb about each one; b) It's the exception rather than the rule. Purplebackpack89 23:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "work in progress" do you not understand? These things take time, and you made extra work for me with your disruptive edits. the request was made on arbcom-l. Shell Kinney wrote back to say that it was pending on March 7, but did not provide a number. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly was not a work in progress. Nobody had edited the page in months, no under construction template, just a list of non-descript, non-notable redlinks that absolutely had to go. The only person who had added a meaningful amount of content but me. I am unfortunately sensing a tinge of ownership in your tone. My edits were not disruptive, but if if you still think they are, start an ANI or RFC thread about it Purplebackpack89 16:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were disruptive. The reason you saw a bunch of redlinks is until this came under debate, I had been creating articles. Now that the policy has been clarified, there will be blurbs if you give me time to make them.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a character doesn't have a blurb, it shouldn't be listed. Purplebackpack89 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Oz characters, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Edit summary

This sarcastic edit summary may have been construed by some editors as offensive, and was certainly unnecessary. For your information, there were no images of Halladay in a Phillies uniform when that article was updated to include his image. The quality of that Phillies image is poor anyway. The uniform of the player, in the grand scheme, doesn't really matter; what matters is effectively illustrating the article with an image of the player. — KV5 • Talk • 10:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live a little, OK? I doubt anyone found that offensive. As an experience editor, I believe that a featured article, as the Phillies starters is, needs to have accurate representations of its subjects, and a picture of Halladay in a Blue Jays uniform isn't accurate if one in a Phillies uniform is available Purplebackpack89 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found it mildly offensive, but that's beside the point. What's not accurate about showing a picture of a pitcher when the caption is about the pitcher? While I see no reason to change the Halladay picture back, no one can deny that the Blue Jays picture is off the quality scale when compared to the Phillies image, which has been heavily doctored and is extremely grainy. — KV5 • Talk • 00:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree on one thing: we need better pictures of Halladay as a Philly. PS: Don't forget to change the caption when Halladay starts 2011 Opening Day Purplebackpack89 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True - and I always do it unless someone beats me to it. Cheers! — KV5 • Talk • 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at List of Oz characters, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins (talk • contribs)

Stop edit warring to add useless content, stop saying not-notable characters are notable, and stop putting spurious unsigned templates on my page. Also, it should be noted that I was not the one who removed P-Z the first time Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 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) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of Oz characters ‎ . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the page in two days, and most of my 50+ edits to the page have been adding content Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Mommas (film series).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Got it. FYI, I'm a guy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mash Bros

You've got a solid sandbox page on the Super Mash Bros. You could easily get that up to speed for the public. I know that has been back and forth, but if you make some small changes I think it would be ready to get back up. I see that the page has been bounced around a couple of times, but I'm not sure why. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References. People think the references aren't reliable enough. It was SALTed by User:Pax:Vobiscum, so you might want to talk to him about it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyrian people Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Democratic Republic of the Congo Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 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) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membership discrimination in California social clubs

Hello. Just wondering if you have a source for this: "Many clubs, such as Los Angeles' Zamorano Club, used a refusal to admit Communist as a pretext for excluding Jews (the Jewish-American bookseller Jake Zeitlin was denied admission for over forty years under those circumstances)." If so, can you kindly put your citation on the above page? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a source. Not sure if it's formatted correctly, but that's probably an easy fix. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but that is only Zeitlin's claim. Not really a reliable and neutral source, wouldn't you say? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC) In any event, I edited the paragraph and moved it to what seemed to me to be a more natural place in the story. (If you have the chance, you might like to work on turning some of those red links into blue ones.) Thanks for having made this article into a better one. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: June 2011

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at User:Scryer 360.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP United States in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject United States for a Signpost article to be published on the Fourth of July. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions and responses may be trimmed if the final article becomes too long. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The June 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) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta

Not sure if you were in the right place.

--Crossmr (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he edit-warred related to images in the instance I bring up, so it's valid either way. I will also comment in that discussion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives collaboration

 United States National Archives WikiProject
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Los Angeles Dodgers ownership dispute

Whoa..jump? "Let's stick to the topic at hand?" Fan talk assertions are POV, and that is not an inflammatory suggestion. As I wrote @ the page, the IP's suggestion, however speculative, was only a suggestion. About the topic of the article. Hence kosher. If the IP intended to irritate Dodger fans. it was a success...within the limits of Wikipedia rules. It's not my IP address, nor anyone's I know. Full disclosure: I enjoy seeing Dodger fans irritated. (-: Cheers. Tapered (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP's suggestion is kosher, how is my refutation (which is completely reasonable) not kosher? Oh, and you asked for this :

GO BLUE!!!!!!!!! Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

36-46. go. Tapered (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly ashamed that we have Kemp, Kershaw, and a record worse than the Mariners, Pirates, or Nats Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]